Leaderboard

Any FedEX guys know when the iPad (10) lanyards are getting ordered? I’d like one.

He is there because WEF, Blackrock and Vanguard want him in that chair.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a year and a half of rushing is just getting started. I know it seems like an eternity, while in your 20’s, but if you’re a gov employee, as you stated, then you certainly should understand the glacial pace the system moves in. Have you interviewed anywhere more than once? You do realize that guard units typically select pilots only once per year? So in a year and a half you haven’t even been through the cycle more than once. Other than that, the advice offered to all the others on similar threads still holds true: -Widen your net (Heavies, Reserves, USAF, USN, USMC) -Enlist in the unit -Practice your interview skills -Get more flt time -Polish up your resume -Network

Another area we disagree. The longer we wait, the weaker we will be for the actual fight. As our weak governance racks up increasingly absurd debt, the pressure to divert military spending to welfare programs will only grow. The longer we wait, the fewer war fighting experts we will have coupled with less and less modern military equipment to fight with. I still think we win based on geography and natural resources, but it'll cost more lives and treasure to wait. Whether or not there is a nuclear exchange, which is not nearly as certain as you propose, does not change the calculus. Will we be better capable of fighting Russia today, or after another 10-20 years of peaceful decline? I'll be honest. I don't care about you. Or me. I want what is best for my kids. I am not interested in adding WWIII to the list of hardships we are pushing off to the future. Appeasement does not work. History is clear on this point, and that's exactly what you are proposing.

Awards/medals are embarrassing compared to the days of old. Even bronze stars and to some extent, DFCs, are handed out for simple baseline-doing-your-job. Everyone gets a trophy for just breathing and doing average shit. Ridiculous.

I’ll answer: We let it fall. We have no treaty obligations, and although I’m opposed to Russian aggression I do not believe WW3 is the best option for our interests. If they start some shit with a NATO ally then fights on.

The current "AI" iterations are not AGI, however they are closer to functioning like a human brain than we have ever gotten before. The irony here is that we didn't accomplish this by figuring out how the brain works, quite the opposite, we created an array of associations that is as mysterious to us as the individual neural pathways of a human brain is. We know that the brain has a combination of biologically-arranged pathways (e.g. for walking, breathing, visual identification of faces, eye position, etc.) and experience-formed pathways (math, music, flying a plane). Right now the AI models crunch tons of mostly-unfiltered data into a model that we do not have the ability to directly adjust because of the sheer volume of parameters, then an overlay is used to do things like prevent swearing, giving directions for bomb making, etc. But this is in it's infancy. Once you can pre-program certain behaviors into the actual model, then leave the rest of the model to continuously adapt the weights based on new data, we will take another big step to AGI. But since we have precisely 0% knowledge on what is or what causes consciousness, it is entirely possible that we reach a point where AGI is achieved simply by running the models with enough horsepower that we stumble into the solution. That is, incidentally, remarkably similar to how evolution works. Are humans the only animals that are conscious? What about dolphins, octopi, crows, or chimps? If not, does that mean there is no intelligence other than human intelligence? That seems like an arbitrary definition. Where is the line, and how smart does a computer need to be before it is considered intelligent? Smarter than all humans, or just smarter than any human? Do people born with Down Syndrome have consciousness? What if an AI surpasses the intellectual ability of someone with DS? Calling even the current models an "abacus" is like calling the human brain a glutamate sensor. Sure, it's kind of true, but it's the scale of the apparatus that makes it interesting.

If you think Tommy Tuberville will make that decision, we really are fucked. And hearing a high ranking GO actually be honest about costs, troop numbers, etc is a nice departure from the Afghanistan hearings.

Vance 24-10 added to our board at work.

One other thing I would add is, if you’ve only been at it for a year and a half. Don’t lose hope, a lot of guys have been rushing and applying to unit for well over 2-3 years. This is a exercise of perseverance. It took me about 1.5-2 years to get hired. If this is something you truly want to do keep at it and keep rushing units and showing face (like others in this thread have mentioned)

As many others have mentioned, visiting the same unit multiple times is what will really get you hired. Also if you can try to stay as local as possible that is something else units love to see. If you just want to fly consider rushing heavy units as they'll have a fraction of the applicants that fighter units get. Definitely nothing wrong with AD, just depends what your goals are and if you're willing to take any assignment. We're all just a little biased here.

Good scores (all 90s AFOQT, 99 PCSM), older duder (mid-late 20s), well liked by people, been trying to go guard with no luck and AD route is looking more appealing. Don't really give a shit what I fly at this point. PPL, anything is more exciting than a clapped out 172. Need some honest feedback. What if I don't care about queep as that's all I've known in my career working for alphabet soup agencies in the USG? What if I don't care about getting deployed? Asshole managers/supervisors have been the norm for me. Looking for some earnest pros and cons. I'd do just about anything at this point for time away from full time desk flying land under fluorescent lights til my skin is wrinky and my dick doesn't work. -DD

You think a Russian invasion of NATO is so likely that you’re willing to start war preemptively? What evidence do you have that: 1. Russia would invade a NATO ally 2. US people support preemptive war, including a possible nuclear exchange, because of something that might happen 3. We could win Asserting the uncertain as inevitable is the logical fallacy which led us into Iraq circa 2003. In that case, our grasp of the facts and read on Saddam himself was completely wrong; it turned out we were fed BS by liars with an agenda (Curveball among others). If we could do that over again knowing what we now know, none of us would choose to have invaded Iraq. You’re smart, you see where I’m going with the comparison. And the potential for a nuclear exchange should absolutely change the calculus, holy shit we’re talking about the possibility our cities get incinerated! We need convincing answers to my 3 questions above or it would be wildly irresponsible to escalate preemptively.

Ballsy move Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I think you may be correct here, eventually. But starting the war that will result in a nuclear exchange just to get it over with is dumb. Next after Ukraine is Moldova, also a non NATO country. Which means the rest of us have two countries to figure out what is actually required. Which means we have a chance to avoid a nuclear war. All of this is how the cold war was fought. The various proxy wars, two segregated economic spheres, etc. The cold war won't look the same the second time around (Putin also learned from glasnost and perestroika) but first step is understanding what is actually happening. Most American pundits are still stuck in main character syndrome, they only disagree on whether it's a hero or anti-hero story. I don't disagree with your primary thought, just the best way to fight this.

So, I'm glad you are at least honest about this. Thank you. The reason I am against allowing Ukraine to be taken, under your logic, is because I believe that *if* they truly want to take Ukraine, they will not stop at non-NATO countries. Wouldn't make much sense strategically. We're better off just starting the damn war now if that's the case. Unless of course the plan is to let them weaken their military by taking Ukraine and Moldova, at which point we immediately go in an crush them. But I'm positive that's not the plan. And to be clear, my primary reason for supporting Ukraine hasn't changed. Sovereignty matters, and a stable world order is not possible if it is not enforced. And here we are. I agree, the right answer is money and equipment, which we are somehow screwing up. And if we are willing to fund the perpetual Ukrainian insurgency, maybe it stays that way after Kiev falls. But it seems like Republicans have forgotten why the world needs police, and why it's better to be the ones in charge.

At the end of the day, yes. They aren't NATO. This was always about making Russia bleed to take Ukraine, and destroy as much of their shit as possible in the process. This is the spark that will re-arm Europe, and the wall will go back up. This war will be fought economically. Hopefully. I really really hope. Because all the politicians are in fact stupid children. EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm saying sending western troops to fight for Ukraine is dumb. Sending more money/equipment is par for the course. Also Moldovia is fucked too.

@Danger41 is spot on. There is a lot of hype and misunderstanding about what AI is and about what it can do. The discussion about artificial general intelligence (AGI) is more theoretical. IMO AGI is not possible, because no matter how sophisticated the output seems, a computer is still just a really really fast abacus. In order to admit a computer into the realm of the "intelligent" you simultaneously need to admit an abacus into the same category. I don't think many people would be comfortable with that leap. Really the whole discipline suffers from having ever been associated with the word "intelligence" in the first place as it begets consciousness, which a computer can never be. What AI is going to do is make a lot of previously seemingly intractable problems solvable, but all it really is at rock bottom is advanced math (statistics) being applied to lots of high-dimensional data. Computers are good at solving things like that. People not so much. Once you understand that, the magic disappears.

Fair enough. I'm glad to hear there are still some good leaders out there. Game off.

AD selection also isn't an easy path but yes if flying is your goal i would work both avenues. I met a guy recently who rushed the same unit for 4 years before he got hired

During my sentence...I mean tour... As an ALO with an armor battalion, I was having a conversation with one off the air defense guys and he proudly stated that the AD folks could visually ID 67% of all aircraft. I guess the other 33% are screwed.

What’s wrong with AD?

I think most of us spent time in special ed. Lot's of arts and crafts time.

Which handover? US to the ANDSF or ANDSF to Taliban?

Experienced this as well in Europe and Africa...but I realized, they shouldn't be competent at operational planning...that's what military planners are for. State is supposed to be diplomats. They're also supposed to have the brains to realize that operational planning (especially in military related activities) should be pushed to the military, because we're pretty damn good at it. The perennial American diplomatic problem is that when things go beyond diplomacy, our diplomats seem to think they are always the smartest in the room...and they never are.