ViperMan

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.

Neither. Intelligence requires consciousness. It's nonsensical to call an abacus conscious.

@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.

I know plenty of guys in the guard who were passed over (not sure about twice, or if there are implications there) and have gone on to become Lt Cols in the guard. It ain't necessarily over, and this could wind up working in your favor. I'm not saying don't prep for a civilian career, but if you want a future in the military, all doors are not necessarily closed to you.

Well said. It's a sad thing, but our modern concept of urban warfare and being able to solve these problems without massive human casualties is a pipe dream - and honestly, Hamas' strategy takes direct advantage of the fact that it's a pipe dream. Someone else said it best, which was that Hamas gave Israel two bad choices. Israel is making the less bad choice. People who honestly think there's a good way out of this are deluding themselves. The entire population of Gaza is will likely need to be displaced in order to solve this conflict. That's a sad thing to confront, but it is what it is, and it's not Israel's fault.

The episode of that podcast. I guess I can just check myself.

The truth is the exact opposite of this. I actually can't tell if you're serious, or seriously trolling. But inflation crushes those who save, and richly rewards those who spend every cent. Think about it this way - inflation makes your money worthless. Does it make sense to hold on to something whose value is decreasing? .No idea. However, the price of braided belt futures is way down from its previous highs in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Yes, the hill we're climbing right now isn't as steep as it recently was. Cumulative inflation since 2019 (or March 2020) has been approximately 21-22%. This is an extreme historical anomaly. That's 5%+ per year, and it doesn't include certain sectors like housing. Which has undergone even more extreme inflation. The worst part is that we're not addressing the root cause - which is an out of control spending habit. Furthermore, even though the end product is the same, when you have higher inflation earlier in an inflationary period, the later inflation, even if it is lower, has a worse effect because the intermediate products are greater for a longer period of time. Recent years' inflation was over 9%. That's going to have a downstream affect. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1%2C000.00&year1=202003&year2=202403

It's fine for one guy to have decided in the government's favor. I don't lament that part of our system. And one rando deciding in the government's favor doesn't make it equal parts R and D responsibility. My problem is with the administrative philosophy that leads to such decisions being made in the first place. Personally, I don't know how the ULCCs have been able to operate for so many years. Honestly, if a business wants to sell itself to another business, I don't see how it's the government's business to stop it. This case seems similar to me as the government saying to an individual they can't sell their home to buyer X at price $Y even though they feel they can't afford the mortgage anymore. The government comes in and says no, you can't sell to party X for $Y...two months later, the business is going under (as predicted by said business), and lo and behold, it seems like the business will have to sell to multiple parties for less than $Y. I know you don't think that would be fair, and I don't see how that's a proper function for our government to play. The business isn't viable to begin with, so the legal reasoning the R judge used was bunk in the first place. And furthermore, you holding one random judge's viewpoint as an equal counter-weight to the entire executive branch's decision to pursue this case is a comically lopsided what-about-ish view of how the government works. That was my argument. Let's not wander too far. What about that argument do you find lacking? And if it's nothing, do you think the administration should face liability for damaging the financial prospects of the owners of that business? IMO the American public is not entitled to cheap airfare. I don't see how it's any of the government's business to regulate a non-necessity.

I did notice. I didn't understand the "but Republicans" refrain. Anyway.

Ok a Reagan judge decided the case. You do understand that it was Biden's administration that brought the case right? You understand one of the most basic features of our government and the separation of powers is that the judicial branch can't charge people? That they can't bring cases? That they can't actually direct the very power they wield?

Sounds like it's time to cut to me! Bruh, a pair of jeans at the BX now costs $50+. For Levis. So I'm glad you have 26% more dollars in your account, but will it buy 26% more? A "nice" shirt at the NEX costs $99 - for a Lucky flannel. $99. At the NEX. Here, read about this phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

Interestingly, the most prominent "false balance" I can point to in modern times is the frame that ALL legacy media uses to discuss current politics. Donald Trump basically got half the vote, yet the presentation of his views as "extreme" belie that most fundamental truth. Casting his views as "extreme" is extreme false balance. Our media DOES NOT, and has not, seriously reckoned with the fact that HALF of all Americans are not on board with the crazy that is the current democratic establishment. I'm glad you're able to call out a few less-prominent democrats who say obviously dumb things. Next step: acknowledge that many, central democrat policies are having detrimental effects on our society WITHOUT a "but Trump is worse" chaser.

Is that new?

The difference on the board between R's and D's is that the R's are willing to call out and name their retards. The D's defend their retards and/or don't recognize that they're retarted. That's the difference on this board. It plays out on a larger scale as well.

Spirit and JB should be allowed to sue the shit out of the Biden regime.

All of this can be and is likely true. It's also true that a second Trump term will be far less damaging to the future of this country than another Biden term will be. So it doesn't matter - to the people voting for him, and to many on this board. You beating the drum about Trump being a real-estate fraudster is sort of nonsensical and childish. Why are you doing it? Do you think people who are voting for him GAF? People are choosing between the lesser of two evils as they see them. The hour is way past the point where caring even one iota about lying on a tax form is going to move the needle for most people in this election cycle. This complaint seems has an air to me similar to that of running to the teacher to tattle on your fellow classmates in 1st grade. Ms. Krabapple, he stole my lunch money!!

So if I was to retire with 20 years active and 8 months reserve, would my retirement be 20+8 months or just 20 years?

Her presence on the court is a tragedy and disgrace. It's shameful and embarrassing reading her dissents on Affirmative Action (SFA v Harvard) and the Dobbs rulings. Not because she's wrong or I disagree with her (and I do), but because in both cases, she makes no attempt to proffer any legal reasoning whatsoever, making an absolute mockery of her office. That said, she is fulfilling her actual purpose on the court. Twat status confirmed.

Question for the crowd. Does anyone know of opportunities that will allow you to collect your retirement, but also retain the ability to go on orders for short periods of time? Examples could look like: Part-time technician that could do things like sit alert from time to time. White jet instructor (DSG/ART) that can turn a few sorties a month at a UPT base. A "points" only gig like USAFA liaison officer - not sure if something like that would even qualify for USERRA. Why? To be able to collect basically the full retirement, keep flying military jets, and also retain full USERRA control over one's airline schedule when necessary. Just looking to the crowd to see if there's stuff out there I'm unaware of as I approach my date.

Does anybody know how "reserve" points count towards your retirement if you trip an AD retirement? Here's the situation, I will be tripping 20 years TAFMS, but will have 6-9 months of reserve time (drills, AFTPs, membership points, etc.). I know I'll qualify for the immediate pay check, but how does that added time - which doesn't "count" toward the 20 - play in? If at all?

It's run and designed by lawyers. That's why. Currently skimming a book titled "Bodyguard of lies" about the deception program during WWII to conceal the allies true plans for invading Europe. Book touches on how many people within the German war machine were intent on a coup and looked to gain allied assurances that they'd be treated favorably after the war. In the end, the US merely used them to validate and provide cover for the intelligence provided by ULTRA. The US resolved that the "outcome of the war would be determined by force of arms," not negotiation. Last time we "won" a war is when we decided that we weren't going to negotiate the outcome with the people who started it. Seems to have worked well for us. Doesn't seem like a strategy developed by someone who's primary field was studying laws.

Grabbed the wrong stick?

For those with time to kill, this is a banger. Wish I could have seen them at this level.

You think the generals are in charge? Hmm.