All Activity

Agreed. But I think that engagement needs to be in person, whether directly with the undecided voter or them watching/listening to the candidate engage with someone else. If I was running for office, I don’t think I’d waste money on mailers or mass texts. I’d maximize human-to-human engagement - me, plus volunteers. Go door to door, set up a table at X location on the weekend, radio/podcast/print news interviews, rallies/speeches, post at least weekly videos on SM answering crowd-sourced questions/addressing stances on the hot topics/responding to the inevitable 100% bullshit statements your opponent has made about you, etc.

I've been spammed by the election texts this cycle. I find them annoying and have not responded to a single one.

People know when its AI. Anything less you got or lost their vote long ago. The middle, no affiliation types, double hating, kind need dialog and reason to vote. Engagement can gain votes. I know, because it could gain mine.

And, I would reply, AI me, vote lost. That's why I think an old school, people based, text/reply, ad campaign, might mean the difference between winning or losing. If I were a candidate and had a million, I'd 100% spend it on real people engaging real people.

Maybe. But I also find politicians response to question unhuman most of the time so it'd be hard to tell if it's political bullshit or a bot. "Well Bob, what I find really important to talk about is <insert totally unreleated topic here>." Polished politicians are about as human as Claude.

Yeah, but the average IQ can spot AI a mile away.

The human on the other end couldn't convince me they're not a bot and therefore it wouldn't do anything for me. Claude et al are just too good and fluent to trust an unseen respondent.

Random question for the 60ish people left on this forum (based off voting on tapatalk question), if you've been getting texts for your local elections, have you replied? Did a person respond? If I were a candidate, all my money would be on texting and in person replies. Engage the person, empathize, get em to vote for me. A million spend this way is votes. Attack ad bullshit is a waste. Thoughts?

Don't sell it short, the last student sortie in the Tweet was 2009.

Dibs!

Thanks for bringing back my Tinnitus's PTSD. My ears just started ringing....more...

Remember, that person gets to vote.

T-37: 1954 - 2005 T-6: 2005 - ...wait, what? Are you shitting me?

As a civilian researcher, I am curious how bringing back waist measurement with twice a year testing changes things compared with the earlier once a year model for high scorers. Does the HAMR option change that picture in practice?

Gotcha, their x post (JBSA) didn’t mention the hard landing and just seeing that part now from this thread. The venerable T-6 though is showing its age, 53% MC rate. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-mission-capable-rates-fiscal-2024/ I’d prefer a return to a jet based primary trainer but that ain’t happening, the T-6C is the easy button so press it Air Force.

(Speculation) I wonder if the emergency gear extension system failed....again...

I mean, if you like Shatner, he's all yours.

Do I hear Dibs?

UCT 27-02 (the last of a syllabus) HC-130 x 2 (1 guard) LC-130 x 1 (guard) MC-130 x 1 B-52 x 2

This happened to a Navy T-6 something around 11-12 years ago if I remember correctly. Too high rate of descent on an ELP.

True. Heard that part this morning. Shit happens in training sometimes, glad the seats worked as advertised.

T-6 production line is still open, the simple answer is right in front of us. 🤷🏼‍♂️ But also I’ve been in acquisitions and know it’s not that simple, even though it should be. Glad they got out and are okay 🍻

I'm not arguing they don't need new iron, but a landing hard enough to break the T-6 gear very well may have broken new iron gear, too.