Leaderboard

Because we aren’t a nation of people. We’re a nation of states. Quick primer on the past: In 1777 we created the Articles of Confederation, during which the states largely acted as their own countries, with a small federal government for the purpose of war and certain aspects of trade. They actually used the term “League of Friendship,” to describe it. Didn’t last long for people to see issues with it, and by 1789 we replaced it with the Constitution, which still is a union of states (United States, after all), but with a stronger federal government. So the states, in their sovereignty, gave a little more (but not all) of their power to the federal government. Check enumerated vs reserved powers if you want info on that. Back to the point, that history is why each state has to elect a candidate for President via the electoral college, not a simple plurality of the population. Because the states allowed for the government to exist. Not the people. A worthy compromise is taking away winner-take-all states in the Electoral College. But a direct vote is a dissolution of federalism. “But it’s not democratic!?” Is the typical response. We aren’t a direct democracy. There hasn’t been a pure one since Greece (and look at how that one worked out). We have a Constitutional republic.

She will be voting by mail from now on.

I'm missing the relevant data about military operations in there. But, more importantly, "diversity is our strength" has *nothing* to do with your search terms. That statement is, and always has been, a reference to diversity of immutable human characteristics. I'm all for diversity of thought being a force multiplier, and there's plenty of evidence in the social sciences for that...but that's not what people mean when the term is used.

Dissolving the electoral college is naive and will not solve problems, it’ll create more. We don’t need to do all of these significant system altering ideas, we simply need term limits. Don’t even give the Pelosis or the McConnells a chance to become “political rulers,” make sure the AOCs are just an insignificant stain on the political map for a few years, etc. This one change would absolutely crush the level of partisan politics we see nowadays. We’d also see candidates who are in line with the framer’s intent...rep the people for 6-9 years, then GTFO and go back to being whatever you were previously. Policy making and voting would be based on what’s best, not on how to get re-elected for the 10th time. Kickbacks, etc. would likely be less because nobody has enough time to make it “high” and stay there in politics...the return on kickbacks/bribes/back door deals would be substantially less, and so goes the incentive to do them.

The latest: "Air Force moves to cancel contracts for training on white privilege" "The Air Force is taking the first steps toward canceling any contracts for diversity and unconscious bias training that include segments on white privilege and other controversial subjects, as called for by the White House." Etc, etc, etc. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/09/22/air-force-moves-to-cancel-contracts-for-training-on-white-privilege/

Welcome back to the GA world, I started back up last year and have been having a blast, while making lots of new friends. Was driving home from the rents today and stopped by an airport because I saw a Stearman inside an open hangar. Wandered up to the hangar to say hey and walked away with a bunch of ideas for my Stearman (plus their offer to help), and a planned 3-ship Stearman outing next weekend. As I was leaving I ran into a retired UAL Captain I know, so we took his Cub up and bounced around the local grass fields. Great people that just love aviation. Did you say air conditioning? Little bit too much AC this day...hoodie wasn't quite enough!

Fake news. This example is clearly systemically biased and false. The only way to get 7 garbage attack plans out of a group of fighter pilots would be to have a diverse group consisting of 1 Hog driver, 1 Viper driver, 1 fat Amy "driver" and 7 Mudhen crew.

Russian PA image of the SU-35 that got the kill.

Stop for a second and think about this. California already has 53 members of the House of Representatives (more than any other state) and two Senators. Wyoming has 1 member of the House and two Senators. 1) California’s voters have a much greater impact on Federal legislation than Wyoming does due to their population giving them 52 more House members. 2) California‘s voters are much more likely to get budgetary dollars with that much representation. ... and you want to add in direct popular vote for the presidency on top of that? What in the world does Wyoming get out of the deal? Why would they sign up for that? You clearly haven’t read the Federalist papers, and they were in their mid 30’s when they wrote them. They advocated for the Electoral College and the representative system we have as a give and take between states... with a clear aim to prevent the “tyranny of the majority.” Why aren’t all the elections for every office held every 2 or 4 years? Why are judges lifetime positions? To prevent a tyrannical overthrow of the system in one election. Bottom line, it’s designed for stability. The founders were smart enough to know that time cools heads, but didn’t make it so aggressive to prevent change over time. We have 17 amendments and God knows how many political changes as proof that formula works.

Term limits. You have people that have been in DC politics for 30-45 years. They’re are crooks, D’s and R’s. After 20 years, you’re done.

If you think for one second that Obama wouldn’t have filed a SCOTUS seat, when his party had controlled the Senate, at the end of his first term; then you’re not being intellectually honest. Parliamentary procedure isn’t about “fairness”, it’s about what party’s in control. Just like Harry Reid in 2013, when they changed to rules requiring 60 votes to approve federal judges and executive branch nominees, to the now accepted simple majority. https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/5-years-after-going-nuclear-democrats-have-reaped-what-they-sowed This RBG wrinkle is going to make the first 9 months of 2020 look relatively peaceful...

I believe the feeling is mutual on the other side. So the question becomes: How do we bring politics back to something approximating the center in this country? I’m not sure as many political issues seem nearly insurmountable at present. Term limits and campaign finance reform would be a start, but those issues are a third rail for career politicians with too much to loose. I think the fact that you make the distinction between political actors and normal everyday folk is an important step that many, many keyboard warriors should consider.

Trump will "allow" for the peaceful transition of power... That is out right funny considering members of the democrat party are openly calling for violence and mayhem before, during and after the election. Along with all of the other temper tantrum tactics like impeachment, stacking the SCOTUS, adding States, mail in voting shenanigans, false narratives when it comes to race relations, etc. And the defund the police bullshit coming from democrats in democrat run cities is part of the plan too. Let's make sure the police departments are in a really bad spot when it comes to dealing with democrats "burning it all down" when Trump runs the tables on November 3rd. At least Bloomberg isn't out there violating election laws by paying off criminal's fees in Florida so they can vote. Oh wait. Yes he is... And the alternative??? Biden? That dude is the literal architect of the 1994 crime bill. He sniffs and rubs up on women and children. His son is a train wreck who made millions off of the very countries that Democrats accuse Trump of being in bed with. I used to be a middle of the road guy when it comes to politics. I have always just wanted left alone. I am a simple Texan. But this is fast becoming right vs wrong IRT policies and politics. I would so much rather have the loud mouthed New Yorker who gets shit done and protects the country instead of someone in the Democrat party who has been in DC for almost 50 fucking years. The republicans don't owe the democrats shit when it comes to a SCOTUS pick after the Kavanaugh debacle. Trump is the President and there is a republican senate. There will be a 3rd Trump SCOTUS justice.

It’s funny that you mention about the definition/perception of leadership. I’m in a group on Facebook for USAF O’s (long story...) and there are a TON of posts in there about leadership development techniques, styles, etc. Every one that I have seen is generated by and subsequently flooded by a bunch of medical and MSG O’s. I posted one time that my leadership philosophy and mentorship program was primarily getting young guys to study and be good at killing the enemy (tangible results). They looked at me like I had 3 arms because I didn’t want to take the time to sing kumbaya and get to know the feelings of every individual. To them, that’s leadership even if the ability to do their job suffers. To me, doing the job at a high level and producing results is what matters. I’ll admit that the President sounds like a dipshit very often but he produces some good results. The former president definitely made people feel better about themselves but was light on things that mattered (I know that’s a gross over-simplification). My $0.02

Hey, in all math I know, B 5-2 = B 3. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

We should be focusing on the mission that UNITES us, not the race baiting academic trash that divides us. Diversity is not strength, unity is strength. And we’re strongest when diverse people have unity of purpose in defending our nation together, executing the mission, and crushing our enemies.

Shack. I don't understand why people struggle so much to understand that at face value on here.

A lot has changed since 2016. The left went all out assault and declared war with little regard to anything. I’m 100% for the right to counter-attack. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Oh boy

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Uh, no, that's not racism, that's data. There is data that says if you grow up black in the US you are more likely to have a relative in prison. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) There is data that says if you grow up white in the US you are more likely to live in a suburb. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) It might be uncomfortable data, but its out there. Honestly, I don't follow you. I understand there are differences among races as far as the data goes. That is well documented, and I agree. My point to you was to say that your view which ascribed a characteristic to an individual based on membership in a group (or to the group as a whole) is the fundamental, operational characteristic of racism - not that there aren't observable differences between the races. Differences between the races will likely always exist - it doesn't mean there are actual biological reasons for those differences. Coming at this problem from the standpoint of biology is awful, and it will never result in lasting solutions for our society. While we're talking about data, there is also data that says police officers are much more likely to be involved in a violent encounter with blacks than they are whites. From the Wapo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/09/are-black-or-white-offenders-more-likely-to-kill-police/). Why are offices far more likely to be killed by a minority than they are a white person? "There were 511 officers killed in felonious incidents and 540 offenders from 2004 to 2013, according to FBI reports. Among the total offenders, 52 percent were white, and 43 percent were black." "From 1980 to 2013, there were 2,269 officers killed in felonious incidents, and 2,896 offenders. The racial breakdown of offenders over the 33-year period was on par with the 10-year period: 52 percent were white, and 41 percent were black." In my worldview, this boils down to a cultural issues. There are legitimate historical reasons for it (racism), but that is from historical social forces, not actual racial disparities between different ethnic groups. That is my point. The differences that we observe which we are happy to pin on race are really due to deeper, underlying factors such as culture, etc. That, however, is a much more difficult conversation to have, and our society isn't exactly behaving in a mature, adult manner of late. Looking to those facts above, officers are vastly more likely to be involved in a deadly encounter with blacks than they are with whites - does that mean black people are inherently more violent? No - that is racist. What it indicates is that there are systemic issues within the black community that result in a grossly disproportionate number of violent encounters with police. It is convenient to pin it on race, but that's not going to solve any problem, because the problem isn't because they are black. What has changed since the enlightenment is we know for a fact now that humans are incapable of reason because of cognitive bias. In fact, the very term cognitive bias is defined as humans making irrational actions because of unconscious perceptions. Realize, there are over 100 forms of cognitive bias, and they are well documented. You probably talk about a dozen of them every time you do a CRM class. Recency bias? You're more likely to treat the most recent SIF you read as more important than one from the 90s. Authority Bias - You are more likely to trust someone if they are credentialed in the field they are speaking, even if their data seems illogical. Halo Effect - You are more likely to assume a "good ing dude" is immune to mistakes in the cockpit. Status quo bias: assuming the enlightenment is the epitome of philosophical thought because that's the way it has been for the last 300 years etc... This is also the major flaw with game theory as well, which presumes a game player always makes rational decisions to effect winning outcomes. People aren't rational, even when they think they are. I am always perplexed by arguments that proceed like this. We are "incapable of reason" except for the reason that lets me to conclude that humans are incapable of reason. Whaaa? Any argument that starts off with "we're incapable of reason, so therefore X, Y, and Z" has some inherent problems. I don't want to hammer this too hard, because there are different ways you could have phrased it, but to me, it does highlight one of the major themes that is going on in our culture - which is to say "there is no objective truth," which has one purpose: to empower certain groups or individuals over others. I'm aware of and know there is such a thing as bias. It's the new hotness. And this thing called unconscious bias, I'm aware of that too. I actually took an "inherent" bias test related to fat/thin (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html). Of course it indicated that I'm biased towards thin. The problem is that I am completely aware of my "inherent" bias towards thin people and against fat people. Fat people take up way to much of my airline seat, too much of my air, and too much of my pricey healthcare. Americans are too fat, and I am biased against fat Americans, but I already knew this. This is more appropriately called preference. Humans have preferences. In fact, I think a strong anthropological argument could be made that says these "biases" are the only reason there are still races. I feel like we have had enough generations all living together at this point that if there weren't preferences, we would all be the same shade at this point. I say all this, but I also don't want to disavow the importance of understanding one's own biases, because it is valuable. Humans are capable of reason, and knowing what your biases are, allows you to modify your behavior appropriately in order to counter those biases. In fact, if people weren't capable of reason, what use would it be to understand one's biases? I can't think of a reason (since I'm not capable of it). The bottom line is that I am deeply suspicious of any post-modern logic that discounts the very notion of "Truth", all the while purporting to have some sort of received wisdom/knowledge which is basically unsubstantiated. 99% of people on this forum give plenty of Eucks? about this. There are whole threads dedicated to leadership not taking care of people. How do you think people are taken care of if not through empathy/sympathy. You want to lambast the AF for poor leadership, but literally every book on leadership out there says you need empathy/sympathy for your charges. Are you really telling me, as a commander, you wouldn't have sympathy/empathy for any of your people if they lost a spouse/child/loved one? I don't think you mean that but how else do you describe that if not sympathy/empathy? I put "Eucks" to avoid the post being blocked (I think they used to be, maybe not anymore). In any case, empathy and sympathy are important for leaders. My point, which I did a poor job of making, is that we now live in a culture that seeks to put empathy and sympathy in front of fact, reason, and logic. Empathy and sympathy are all good, I got no issue. My issue is when we just go soft on people and issues because we don't want to address actual problems cranium-on.

I guess I'm just not seeing the same awesome results you guys are... He's done some good, but I'd say the balance is not in his favor. I'm not here to say anything that hasn't already been explained, then completely ignored on here. One thing Pres Trump has going for him is the inexplicable ability to inspire absolute loyalty in spite of his obvious lack of concern for anything or anyone but himself. His followers, because I don't know what else to call them, have an amazing ability to ignore everything he says and does that is clearly beneath his station while buying everything he says is "thanks to him" as gospel truth. Obama created a serious divide in our country, and Trump thought it looked like fun, so he's run with it on steroids. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The entire point of The Enlightenment was that logic and reason could be used to transcend individual human experiences and thus individuals could have empathy for that which we did not experience ourselves. So, it doesn't require a person of another gender, another race, another [insert characteristic here] to be present for any other human to comprehend, understand, and empathize with their perspective and/or lived experiences. You don't actually have to feel childbirth to understand what it is like. You don't have to be a "POC" to understand the experience of what it must be like, whatever that is supposed to mean. If you want to argue that people of different *cultures* bring different perspectives to the table, that's perfectly valid...but to say that immutable characteristics are responsible for (or an avatar for) differences in thought and character is precisely the kind of "logic" that was used to undergird actual tribalism (or racism, if you'd rather frame it that way) for hundreds (thousands?) of years. No two humans are alike, regardless of immutable characteristics, so Enlightenment logic on the issue is a truism for all humans to be able to form social groups. People of the same immutable characteristics can have a widely divergent set of experiences, beliefs, and character, just as people of a wide variety of immutable characteristics can all believe in the same orthodoxy. Diversity of immutable characteristics is not an avatar for diversity of perspectives, simply put.

Well, I'm a staunch individualist...but that being said, there has never been any data or proof (outside of a cliche catch phrase that was foisted upon society in the 1990s in pursuit of an ideological narrative) that "diversity is our strength." I don't have a problem with the concept if it is actually true...but unfortunately we bypassed the "falsification test" part and went right to the "this is fact and we cannot question it" part.

I'd say a step in the right direction.

Memphis is hiring. Shoot me a PM with your email if you want the flyer.

It actually been pointed out multiple times in this thread. You just don't agree with that view point. Just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean there isn't merit.

20? I’d say more like 10.

Yes. And it was intentional. If the popular vote mindset won out, every national political decision would be decided by major metropolitan urban voters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits-idUSKCN26F3L3 Obviously theater as it would require an amendment to really implement this and the current POTUS would veto it. However, the concept doesn't even seem that well thought out. Would voters be aware that when they elect a President they are also electing to Surpreme Court Selects? It would completely change elections because it would swing voters to vote for judges instead who would have a much longer appointment than POTUS. How is it Congress can get on board with term limits for other offices but can't get on board with term limits for their own political machines?

The above, x1000... The below, not so much. To be clear, the bold part of your argument there is actual racism (not the fake news racism ala current political and social discourse, but actual, genuine racism). You are ascribing differences to people based on their external, immutable characteristics - whether positive or negative, that is racism. Your bit about the enlightenment is also off target. It's more important now than at any time in the past 70-80 years probably. The idea that individuals had worth and rights was transformative for humanity as a whole, not just the (Western) culture that enacted it. Since large parts of the world are yet to be "enlightened," it is ever relevant. And if you are suggesting there are enlightenment ideas that are "wrong" which ones? The supremacy of fact, reason, and logic? What don't we know yet, IYO? Finally, thanks for the pedantic lesson on the differences between empathy and sympathy, though I'm sure most of the fighter pilots on this board still give precisely 0 Eucks about either. This discussion has brought forth the central conflict occurring in our culture right now: facts vs feelings. I think you're on the side of feelings.

lots of what you describe above is fine. but teaching "unconscious bias" training ain't what you describe. telling me i'm a racist and if i deny it that's even more proof that i am one...doesn't seem to be fair or helpful to winning wars.

If you are going to make me do PME by correspondence, then give me time to actually do it instead of telling me to do it in my off time. With actual time and if you do it right you could even make it more beneficial for people that put some effort into studying and through possibly networking. As something to do in my spare time I want to put as little effort into it as possible, and get little out of it.

SCOTUS has expanded and contracted in the past, but has been at 9 justices since 1869. They absolutely can try to “pack the court” if they have the votes. I think it’s in poor taste, but they’d have every right to do so. Congress can admit PR as well, but historically PR would have to draft a Constitution, submit it to Congress, then they’d have to pass a series of laws creating the state, and that takes time. Enough time that maybe an election cycle changes the party structure to prevent it. Worth noting that Puerto Ricans denied statehood at the ballot box in 1967, 1993, 1998 and 2012. The GAO in 2012 found statehood actually would hurt the island’s economy and set them back as they would have a higher tax burden. DC won’t happen without a long court fight. DC is actually created in the constitution as a federally administered area, not controlled by a state. Since you like facts, here’s why. I’ll even quote the source: “In 1783, a crowd of disbanded Revolutionary War soldiers angry about not having been paid gathered to protest outside the building where the Continental Congress was meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave. Despite requests from the Congress, the Pennsylvania state government declined to call out its militia to deal with the unruly mob, and so Congress was forced to abruptly adjourn to New Jersey.” After that incident, the founders realized having the nation’s seat of power in a state meant the state could control their access and/or deny them protection during the lawmaking process. To maintain impartiality, they decided, it needed to be an area without bias (I think all of this is in Federalist 43). So, the Constitution set out a plan to make that happen. Maryland and Virginia both gave land to create DC. VA ended up taking their contribution (modern day Alexandria) back after a while. So it’s not an open and shut case for DC. It’ll be in court for forever. These racist, fascist founders were real idiots, I tell you.

Change it when it doesn't work for your party, but crickets when it does? Looks like Schumer and gang might regret their decision for requiring only a simple majority for SC judge appointments.

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from “winner-take-all” laws that have been enacted by state legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state. Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. In 2012 all of the 253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were completely ignored. States rights, huh? Bring back a system that actually makes everyone’s votes matter.

I started to write something, then I re-read your post, and Flea's. I have no idea what either of your points are. Also, you believe ICE is actually sterilizing immigrants in some grand eugenics conspiracy? The CNN article I could find is a basket of non-specific anecdotes, confirmation bias, and creative framing. The federal government has too much power, but it isn't a fascistic, all controlling Machiavellian new world order. It's a giant incompetent bureaucracy lacking accountability. So just like every other giant bureaucracy.

I may be misremembering history but slavery was integral to the forming of the country. The legality of chattel slavery wasn't decided by any democratically elected representatives because members of the Constitutional Convention we're decided by the states, not of the people.

So in the last three days, I have flown, with an instructor, a Cirrus SR20, a Diamond DA40, and a Cessna 172. All had the G1000 panels. In the San Antonio area in September - hot and humid. First, nice to realize that some mechanical skills come back without too much effort - can turn while holding altitude, other very basic flying things. It's been literally 30 years since I last did so. Second, glass is great! The intricacies of using the panel is still in the future, but I'll be going to ground and refresher school for that, so no worries. But the ease of use/interpretation was much better than I imagined since I last used the round steam gauges for everything. Not having to have a paper explosion when crossing sectional boundaries, or when I get my instrument rating, having approach plate pages flop to the wrong one, etc. will be nice. Third, and this is how I tried to explain it too my non-flying wife - the Cirrus with its performance, interior, and AIR CONDITIONING was like being in a really nice Mercedes or BMW. The side yoke also made it much more comfortable for a 6'4" guy for leg room. My instructor used a 8x11 iPad and had plenty of room to use it on his lap as a kneeboard. I want one of these. @500K and up new, of course. The Diamond with it's stick and lots of plexiglass was new to me. Damned hot all day. Got queasy while skull down trying to read/play with the G1000 for some of the gee whiz stuff while bouncing around at 2500 ft. Not as roomy as the Cirrus or the Cessna especially for long legs. My instructor used an iPad Mini on a suction cup on the side window. The Cessna was old home week. Like being in a 1968 VW Bug with the mother of all stereos for the G1000. Also hot, but less so than the Diamond since it was less plexiglass to heat up. The yoke coming back into the lap thing is making me reassess my plan of buying a full size iPad (cuz I'm old as are my eyes) and going with the Mini. Just ain't as much room in the thing now as when I weighed a whopping 160 back then. Sticking with the David Clark's for now until I've tried multiple other headsets and decide to drop $1K or more Bottom line: Air conditioning is great in a small plane. It should be considered a basic human right. I am really grateful for all the inputs received here for recommendations and gouge.

And the Right was just sitting there as innocent as can be, doing nothing at all and getting sucker punched by the big mean left. 😢

It must be terrifying for you to live in a world where you are under constant attack from such a ruthless and powerful enemy

Make sure the individual did ASBC, SOS in correspondence, SOS in residence(8 weeks), Masters, ACSC and plan the squadron Christmas party. Those should eliminate the award/medals/combat/deployed time and other “useless” data points for the board.

That may be the case but at least attempt to not talk out your ass and just say "we think we're going to win in November so we're going to kick the can down the road" instead of waxing poetically about the will of the people.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” — Mitch McConnell, 2016.

Got my CMP 1911 today. I had honestly forgotten about it since I submitted the application almost two years ago. It's a 1945 S/N R&R field grade. It'll go well with my Garand in the heavy metal class whenever three gun opens back up.

Texas Reloaded https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd6b_8OlwXU

Exactly this. And while there would have been complaining from those on the right, I doubt you would have seen the threats that are currently coming from the left. People literally threatening violence over a Supreme Court nomination. And to be honest, based on how this year has gone, if Trump does get a nomination through, I fully except there to be actual riots and violence in the streets from the left...again.

Hard disagree. During the election there was a significant group of my coworkers who were convinced Trump would win the popular vote, but lose the election and they were already talking about the "serious conversations about the electoral college" we'd need to have. Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

This one? 🤣🤣 🤣 Yes, it's in German; but everything's funnier in German!

If you like the Cirrus wait until you discover Lancair, 200kts cruise, glass in front, side stick and only $235k

2 big reasons I disagree with your last paragraph: Let's be honest, the business world is filled with control freaks, and you just can't control an employee very effectively from behind a computer screen. It's hard for me to believe all those millions of hardass "you're fired if you show up 5 minutes late" managers will just be cool with the way things are now. So much business is done through conventions and face to face networking. So much of it has to be done in secrecy, or requires someone to be "boots on the ground" at a work site. The second reason is, the market will adjust. Commercial rents will get cheaper if there's lower demand to balance. Service companies (like, say, a consultancy) trying to save on rent costs and insurance will have a clear competitive disadvantage to companies that are willing to fly people out and spend the money. Video and teleconferencing has been already been out for a long time --- there's reasons why it never really took over.