Leaderboard

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

Well....we've responded to you for many years. 🥃

Taiwanese U-2 pilot Johnny Shen died last Thursday, age 92 He was a U-2 pilot with The Black Cat Squadron on Taiwan from 1968 to 1973. He was admitted to the CAF Academy in January 1952, then trained in the PT-17 and the T-6. After his graduation in December 1955, he was assigned to the 4th Tactical Fighter Group in Chiayi. He was first sent to Tainan to be trained on the T-33, then returning to Chiayi to fly the F-84 in 1956. Later he converted to the F-100. He left the 35th Sq in 1973 and became the vice military attache in Vietnam. After the loss of Vietnam, he returned to Taiwan to served on several desk jobs. He retired from the CAF as a Colonel in 1977 and joined China Airlines, where he flew the Boeing 707, 727, 767, and 747, and Airbus A-300. He transferred to EVA Airlines in 1992. Then he returned served in Taiwan's Civil Aviation Administration until 1998. After retirement, he emigrated to Canada and lived in Vancouver. These guys flew some really risky missions. Him him...

"Ghost guns" are another fabricated and irrational scare tactic term akin to "assault rifles" for those who are hoplophobic. Serial numbers don't stop the illegal use of a firearm any more than a VIN stops someone from stealing a car. The right to keep and bear arms is an alienable one, not "granted" by any government. And, as we all can attest to, anything the government gets its nose into is more likely to get fucked up that fixed!!

In this case you are quoting a literal Russian Psyop outlet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It goes way beyond Plastic. A society without soaps… most medications… superior lubricants to machine parts… fertilizers growing 8 billion people in food. The sheer stupidity of somebody that thinks human existence can exist at this scale without petroleum is just unaware of anything petroleum is used as a precursor or provides the bulk chemical make up of. They just think a barrel of oil = gasoline = bad stuff for global warming. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

@Biff_T: See that yellow circled part? Excess Russian women between 55 and 75. You were born for this.

The irony is Im reading all of this while taking a pretty mean Growler.

Perhaps you're right, the war will be fought economically. If one wanted to slowly weaken, bleed, and defeat Russia, here's how we should go about it: Economically: First, we get Russia to spend themselves into oblivion. Interfere in their elections by funding Communists and leftists. That's assuming they have free and fair elections. Once their domestic spending outpaces their GDP by a substantial amount, we compel them to send hundreds of billions of dollars more to foreign governments. They'll be forced to further into debt, using creative tools to sustain their economy. Soon, they won't be able to maintain an infrastructure, the Russian standard of living declines, and social unrest ensues. I also see other strategic opportunities to weaken Russia: Socially: Using technology and social media, we inundate it's population with propaganda. We flood them with polarizing ideas and political ideologies. We create organizations that fund the migration of millions of poverty level people, particularly military age young men, from a vast array of cultural, religious backgrounds, creating a further strain on resources and social cohesion. Sponsor protests. Encourage violence. Militarily: Focus on making Russian military service an undesirable career choice. Create a recruiting crisis that shrinks the size of their military. Make them reliant on complex technologies with multiple single points of failure and insanely expensive acquisitions processes instead of mass and production. Create cognitive dissonance by telling Russians they're fighting for the nobel principles Russia was founded on while simultaneously incentivizing Russian politicians to destroy those principles. Energy: Make them deplete their energy reserves and hamstring domestic production by making them adhere to global climate change policies. Make them reliant on foreign cheap oil. I could go on, but I see plenty of opportunities to weaken Russia over the long term. The key is, it takes time. We can't allow ourselves to be provoked into an overreaction, massive escalation, or direct military conflict. If we're patient, Russia will eventually collapse from within.

FIFY

Don't worry, they learn how to read once they hit elementary school.

Ballsy move Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

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

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'm only here for Biff_T's posts!! 😗

Russia is cold and gay....it also sucks.

Classic example of 0200 at the bar vs the next morning regret.

No… they don’t… Again, the particular podcast in question is linked directly to Russian state sponsored media and has frequent guests that are so corrupted as to have registered under the foreign agents act or to have been flat disbarred/disgraced or fled western countries and now shill so as not to be extradited. These aren’t viable/reliable sources of perspective just because they enjoy internet popularity. These are highly compromised individuals providing an outlet for a foreign power’s influence campaign which is designed to erode confidence and cause civil resistance and government disfunction. And no… you don’t need to listen to a broad depth of content from an Alex Jones type character to know it’s nonsense and bullshit. Similarly you don’t need to listen to not just pro but deliberate government controlled/influenced media to “get the real story” or whatever other BS. That’s like choosing to eat what is clearly a turd in between two slices of bread to find out for sure if you do or don’t like the taste. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve noticed this as well, many moderately political hot women I knew got much uglier the more outspokenly liberal and progressive they get. Weird.

My man, I say this with more experience than 69% of the people here...you abso-fucking-lutely are wasting your time here. I would know!

From the AP I'm gonna withhold judgement on this one. For now, at least, until more info comes out. It sounds like this is a case of family members battling after a death. If you've ever witnessed it, you know. Reasonable people do unreasonable things when a death happens in the family. Even more so if a step parent is involved.

I've been making my way through this page. Fascinating debates by our founding fathers about their concerns when writing the Constitution. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp I found this passage pertaining to John Madison's speech to be particularly relevant today. It's from June 29th. "His great fear was that their Governments would then have too much energy, that these might not only be formidable in the large to the small States, but fatal to the internal liberty of all. The same causes which have rendered the old world the Theatre of incessant wars, & have banished liberty from the face of it, would soon produce the same effects here. The weakness & jealousy of the small States would quickly introduce some regular military force against sudden danger from their powerful neighbours. The example would be followed by others, and would soon become universal. In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of war, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe could maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke. The insular situation of G. Britain was the principal cause of her being an exception to the general fate of Europe. It has rendered less defence necessary, and admitted a kind of defence which could not be used for the purpose of oppression. -These consequences he conceived ought to be apprehended whether the States should run into a total separation from each other, or shd. enter into partial confederacies. Either event wd. be truly deplorable; & those who might be accessary to either, could never be forgiven by their Country, nor by themselves."

I could get on board with that, if we can go back to the 1800s where it was pretty easy to simply execute violent criminals, whether through official or unofficial means. But we’re not in the 1800s, so if you get out of prison after violently raping a woman (or man if you’re BQZip’s mom), conducting armed robbery/assault, carjacking, etc. then fuck you, you gave up your right when you acted like a total POS who would have simply been put down in days bygone. Above answer is directly related to background checks. I only support them to verify you are in fact not a felon.

Oddly, they didn't win despite a huge ramp to their industrial base and the employment of millions of rounds of artillery, airstrike and even chemical weapons. It's almost like an adversary employing asymmetric tactics (Stinger), blunted their advantage, bled them until they packed up and went home. Who would have thought...

Live updated Frontline Map Institute for the study of war - Great site founded by retired General Jack Keene - They have a VERY good interactive map as well. BBC has a good site as well (they leverage the Institute for War's maps with their own reporting and analysis). A bit gruesome at times but Reddit/combat hosts new videos of the conflict everyday. Three themes emerged in the video: 1. Early on the Javelin stopped the Russians cold, now they don't attempt large maneuver actions unless they absolutely pummel an area pre-strike with artillery. 2. Ukraine has been very effective at combined arms. Even through they don't have Air Superiority, they have used drones to coordinate fires in both TICs and interdiction. 3. Small drones have changed warfare. Hundreds of videos of drones dropping grenades AND being uses in a kamikaze roll to chase down individual soldiers...it is chilling to watch. If someone added AI... They have noted some gains by Russia in recent week which they attribute to the Ukrainians running short of long-range strike weapons and air defense. If the Senate approves the aid package those systems will start to flow on Friday. Also interesting to note the perceptions of those who voted against the aid, they think we are sending Ukraine pallets of cash which in fact $50B will flow into the U.S. Industrial Base creating jobs in 30 states.

Technically speaking @BashiChuni is correct on point one. It's not possible to re-blunt something that is already as blunt as it can be. They (Russia) are more than two years into this mess after having had 8 years of pre-combat battlefield shaping operations. Two years! For an operation that would have taken us a long weekend. Russia is most certainly blunt.

You new here? Aren’t there runways spread around the globe? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

You old bastards know if you decide you want to add something to your post, you can just edit the post, instead of making 6-9 in a row...? FFS.

Nothing Uncle Bosey's nephew can't handle.

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.

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.

I think that just says more about you and how you approach the conversation. That's not to say that you don't get some fairly absurdist abuse thrown your way, but if you haven't been able to hone and adapt your positions based on the information and data on this forum, then you're on a team. I'll be honest, I respect that you continue to engage, and about 75% of the time you do it in a respectful manner (I consider that a very high percentage for internet conversation. I don't think I meet that standard). But I have found your arguments to be fairly cookie cutter, cheerleader type DNC stuff. Rarely compelling, and I am not even remotely a die-hard conservative. I think a part of that might be that since you are a political minority here, you are usually on the defensive and that makes it very hard to concede any ground to the other side. It's not a unique phenomenon. And yes, I absolutely believe there are people here who fit that description but from the conservative side. Pretty much anyone who defends Donald Trump's character probably falls into that category. You could just be a true believer, but it is rare to find someone on either side who so neatly fits into the political party positions. I only bring this up because I get the sense from gearhog that he is legitimately interested in honing his own beliefs and incorporating as much new data into them as possible. Even though I do not agree with a lot of his conclusions. That's the value I get from this board as well. I get the sense that you believe your positions are already perfected. At least that's how you communicate them. In that case, yeah you are definitely wasting your time.

While I agree with the concept of debating the content and not the source, the only realistic way to do anything useful is to filter out sources that do not meet a certain standard. Being correct sometimes is not a high enough standard. As an example, it is unrealistic to expect someone to spend time disproving the many insane things Alex Jones says regularly. Even though he's right sometimes, and even though he's right sometimes when everyone else is burying the story. It's just the peril of dealing with unlimited information. As an intermediate solution, you can ignore a source with an obvious bias. A sort of "recusal" for media. I'm this case, it's rational to discard Russian-government-controlled media when discussing a war Russia is waging. Yeah, they'll be right sometimes. Too bad so sad. There's not enough time in the day to vet sources with a huge bias when other sources exist. I wouldn't trust the Ukrainian press releases either, nor waste time with them.

Definitely a poet first... his songs all sound poorly produced and his voice is trash. But the lyrics are always amazing. I always had this one in my head when we'd all drunkedly stumble back to the base in UPT.

The only person who has mentioned or linked to RT is you. Am I wrong? Quote the post. The best you can do is... stil... a random unsourced screenshot of an unknown person claiming the podcast is linked, but by multiple layers of separation. This is called the "straw man argument" and you can add it to your growing list of dubious debate tactics. It would be so cool if you would just acknowledge, address, and debate the actual specific pieces of information you disagree with. You'll also find it's much easier than using your repertoire of tactics to do anything but. Yes, RT is an outlet for state propaganda. This is not new information and I thought it was so obvious that I didn't need to make a confession to you. We in the US, also have dozens of media outlets coordinating with government officials to censor dissenting information and distribute approved information. That shouldn't be new information, either. Do you not know this? It's just a fact of life that both sides carry water for both governments. Objectively, usable information can still be gleaned. There is virtually no unbiased information floating around out there. All of it has to be taken with a grain of salt, deconstructed, and it's parts evaluated. Not only do you refuse to do any of this, but admit that you don't even know who has deemed that info as false. And then you wave it around to everyone shouting "PROOF!" It's mind-bending. I'm not here just to be contrarian. My motivations are not a problem for me or anyone else. I'm not being creative here. Lying takes effort and this is effortless. These things are as apparent to me as going inside, pointing up and saying "Hey, the sky is blue" and being met with a chorus of angry people saying "Why did you go outside? WTF? Putin also thinks the sky is blue you Russian shill! It's not always blue, sometimes it's gray, liar! Whatabout the clouds? They're white, moron!" I only want people to consider than they're being manipulated. What is the alternative to Bashi or me or anyone else posting here with a different perspective? Would you rather have a little circle jerk with only the people who wear the same blinders you do? That's what it seems like. You're actually arguing that you don't have first hand knowledge or critical thinking skills. You just let other strange people on the internet tell you what info you should and should not look at. I find it fascinating anyone operates like that.

Until the moment one is convicted of a crime (and therefore legal to own firearms up to that point), an individual should be able to own whatever they want, including homemade firearms. That also means the NFA is a significant violation of the constitution and should be fully repealed. Any additional roadblocks to ownership/use such as firearms/ammo specific taxes, insurance requirements, banning of whatever, etc. are unconstitutional. I support restrictions for felons and I’m fine with background checks for purchased firearms (without any arbitrary waiting period), but anything beyond that is unconstitutional and illogical. The anti-gun crowd doesn’t give a fuck about safety or “saving lives,” they care about disarming the public to gain control of the plebes, pure and simple. Your average suburban dipshit who’s anti-gun just doesn’t realize they are simple pawns in said goal, despite whatever hollow, altruistic goals they claim to personally have.

Kind of like a “well regulated clock”…clearly the government needs to regulate our clocks.

If you actually start looking at original founding members of things like the Sierra club, there is a deeply inhuman meritocracy of human survival they are advocating for silently. John Muir was an advocate for white ascendency and soft extermination of lesser peoples. People that read things like Population bomb and think it is a sound science from a place of money and power don’t want there to be 8 billion people on the Planet. These were champions of Eugenics, which at its time was a widely regarded pseudo scientific thought and now through revision its something we normally just associate with the Nazis. That doesn’t make that the sole platform of the eco movement. There are utopian-futurists in that movement who want to see us ascend technologically (people that think of things like mass scale tidal power generation), there are opportunistic parasites (people funneling trillions of future investments to the cause so they can be a ground floor owner in that investment). There are the dogmatic zealots (think green-peace/morons like Greta) who see this like an extreme religious crusade. There isn’t just 1 monolithic ecological identify. But what I’ve found is most of them want no discussion of the trade off to anything they are presenting as the sole and only problem. They want to just do arithmetic in a game that is regulated by calculus/physics. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, you've partied with some airline captains too, eh?

Another inevitability. The move to "re-shore" some critical manufacturing capabilities is the only good news these days. The sooner the better. Trading with China was the biggest mistake of the post-WWII era. We could have pulled the entirety of Latin America into the modern world, instead we funded the buildup of our biggest geopolitical adversary, and got an immigration crisis as a bonus.

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.

Vance 24-10 added to our board at work.

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

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.