Leaderboard

Twitter isn't an ISP... Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T blocking or prioritizing packets of data based on where they come from or are going to would violate the net neutrality concept. Net neutrality prevents the ISP from cutting deals to favor certain businesses or ideals/opinions. And this is necessary because they are common carriers for information: ISPs are *infrastructure*. Apple and Google both are well within their rights to remove any app they believe violates their terms of service (or for any reason): it's their walled garden, and the blocking of an app on an app store has no bearing on the transmission of data. This is just the free market. People can still get unapproved or blocked apps, but have to do it via a third party (side loading). This is not a violation of net neutrality principles. Sure, it's harder to get a blocked app because you don't have the benefit of using the default app store, but the app developer can still publish and distribute their app through other means, and net neutrality allows the same priority of the data packets regardless of the source, whether it's Apple's app store server or a private, third party server. Twitter, Facebook, app stores, websites, etc aren't common carriers or infrastructure. Being blocked on Twitter does not limit your free speech. You can switch to another service, or build/host your own website/discussion forum to get your message out in the internet. And with net neutrality, packets of data moving to/from your website have the same priority as packets of data from Twitter, and prevents the ISP from blocking out your small service in favor of business interests (like faster connections to business partners). Net neutrality has zero to do with content or opinions, or ensuring "balanced" viewpoints are represented online, and everything to do with ensuring infrastructure is shared equally and no one gets priority access to the infrastructure. Separately, section 230 protects online *platforms* (such as twitter or Facebook) from being considered a *publisher*. This distinction prevents twitter/Facebook/discussion boards/etc from having to moderate all content before it is published on their platform. Essentially, without section 230, it breaks how we conduct discussions on the internet. Imagine if the mods on BaseOps had to approve ("publish") every post, because the forum owner was legally liable for any content that appeared on the forum instead of the individual poster. Removing section 230 would completely stifle any discussion, slows down the internet, and would break the fundamental model of social media. But that's not to say that moderation or enforcement of rules can't happen, just that someone can't sue the platform based on a opinion posted by an individual on that platform. It's just like phone companies (infrastructure) not being liable for the text messages you send, but for internet communication. Section 230 is good, it protects internet businesses from frivolous lawsuits because they have deeper pockets than an individual. For example, it prevents Democrats from suing Twitter for allowing Trump to tweet anything they disagree with. Got an issue with what is said on the platform by an individual? Take it up with the individual.

Rule of Thumb: If you cannot drink the tap water in a country, don’t fly their nation’s airlines.

Flea and I don't often agree. Who cares about the reason, I don't even care if he did it to literally say he fulfilled a promise that he doesn't care about. It is over a decade past the time we should have left that hole. Blatant politicking on his part, but still good for our country. We've wasted way too many lives and national treasure on a lost cause. Leave, and don't look back. Drop some pointee talkees on the way out saying we won't come back except with some JDAMs if they allow their territories to be used for training terrorists again. I've lost too many friends over there to care about the right vs wrong reason to leave a place we should have left forever ago.

Why does everyone still engage this troll? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Oh, I have zero problem with them banning Trump. I just think it's disingenuous to pretend they're trying to "prevent violence" when they don't kick terrorists off the platform for actively planning attacks. Maybe there isn't as much to be gained from the liberal media for kicking radical Islamists...sorry, austere religious scholars...off the site.

The cancel culture stuff is way overblown. There are huge communities of conservatives on every platform that exist without the threat of bans for one simple reason: they don't go around threatening people and inciting violence. If cancel culture is such a problem you're gonna have to explain to me how the #4 and #5 podcasts on apple right now are Dan bongino and Ben Shapiro. Seriously.. All of the biggest political channels are conservative. This is the case across most platforms. Conservatives are killing it on social media, and this has been the case for a long time. The problem Parler has is that they are the dumping ground for everyone that got kicked off normal social media for rules violations. This isn't a healthy pool of people from which to draw your user base. Think of it like AETC. It's no wonder the culture is toxic when you're getting the rejects from everywhere else. On top of that they weren't enforcing their own terms of service or maybe the wretched hive of scum and villainy grew too large to enforce, and at some point the hosting companies took notice. Probably doesn't help when a contingent of your nutjob users storms the capitol of the country. I actually think social media companies have been handling the delineation between conservative opinions vs things that are actually illegal and dangerous really well. Platforms like YouTube and Twitter keep conservatives around who actively trash them on a daily basis as long as what they're saying isn't incitement. Hell, every Steven crowder episode is basically just 90 minutes of him complaining about the YouTube algorithms. Lastly, to everyone invoking the section 230 town square argument I have two things: 1. If you go to the town square and try to start an insurrection, you will get arrested. 2. If you want to form your own alternative town square, no one is legally obligated to lease the space they own to you. TL;DR - if you want to behave like sh1t you're probably going to need to build your own infrastructure from the ground up.

I wrote them and got a draft of the proposed new emblem. Not approved yet but in coordination. CD64EF33-660B-45F2-99B4-8039C994B068.pdf

He has been one of the more vocal republicans the last few days. I thought about him on our board. Glad he is speaking up.

Still doesn't mean it wasn't a good decision for the country. Seriously, you can hate Trump for a lot of things. Please do not hate him for getting us out of all the quagmires Bush and Obama entangled us into. It was the one thing I strongly supported about his Presidency.

It's a parody of the Cal Worthington used car commercials in the 1960's and 1970's in the Los Angeles area. I lived in SoCal for 3 years as a kid, and those commercials were ubiquitous. That video was from the old March AFB F-4 Guard unit, and they were right in the middle of "Worthington Country". Do a Youtube search, watch a "Cal Worthington and his dog Spot" commericial, and you'll see what I'm talking about. After you watch a couple, you'll realize the pilot that did that parody was pretty spot on! Here's one: What I never knew until about 10 years ago was that Cal Worthington was a B-17 pilot in WWII. After the war, he wanted to be a professional pilot but couldn't make it happen. He died about 7 years ago in a town not far from Beale AFB. He owned a gorgeous old Learjet, and when it was sold, I almost took a job flying it. The inside had pretty much zero avionics upgrades but it was immaculate. I saw it on the ramp at my local non-towered airport (KLHM) 3 months ago. Cal was apparently quite a nice guy, and a great American.

I would also add there is an intelligence reason to not taking those down so fast sometimes. I cannot go into further detail. But they do take down a lot of stuff, just because you don't see it doesn't mean its happening. I've posted on here some about the "hunters" that go after bot/ISIS/disinformation accounts. Watching their work is pretty amazing.

Hasn't it been determined that the COVID-19 spreads through respiration, not through food? Hey, you do you. I'm sure nobody missed you at their farewell.

The far right MAGA breaking off from the GOP will hurt the GOP in the near term, but will help in the long term. It allows the GOP to no longer have to cater to the extremists in the party, and allow them to appeal to more moderate voters. Plus it starts to break down the 2 party system, which is a good thing.

I get your sentiment. And I think generally, social media tries to be careful and walk a fine line. Because again, there's a business case to be made for having as wide of a user base as possible to increase their revenue. But Jan 6 crossed a line for many companies who felt that the violent actions were organized using their services, so they blocked people they believe we're inciting that violence to prevent future acts using their services. The president's speech isn't limited by being blocked by twitter; he literally has a press room for official communications, and his campaign to get out political messages. Plus the argument that 1st amendment principles doesn't apply to modern communications isn't a strong one. Government can't restrict an individual's speech, but businesses can control what they publish. For publishers, they don't have to publish opinion columns that they don't like. For platforms, they generally aren't held responsible for the opinions of those speaking on their platform (a theater isn't liable for the opinions expressed by a performer or speaker who performs on the stage). Those concepts can be directly applied to new communications technology since the underlying principles remain true, and have been codified in section 230. Which is why Trump and the Republicans have been adamant about repealing section 230, and tied increasing Covid stimulus payments to repealing section 230. Repealing it allows people or organizations to sue a platform such as twitter for perceived unfairness. Which sounds good at a surface level, but opens the door for continuous frivolous lawsuits, especially from political agents, against the platform, rendering the business model unviable for social media platforms. So then everyone loses that platform due to political views of a few well connected and wealthy individuals.

I swear to god we had damn-near solved queep during the early weeks/months of COVID, and now we have purposely allowed it back into our organizations. After finding out what was truly mission essential and what as not, I'm just floored at the number of people that gleefully welcome back all the self-licking ice cream cones, asskissing briefings & awards, and plainly non-essential tasks back in to our everyday lives.

Was still great for the country either way. We have no reason to be there anymore. I dread the thought of us going back.

Didn't take long... 🤣🤣🤣

Collin Powell explains why he can't be GOP anymore For all those pseudo Patriots, here's a real one. If you've never seen him speak live, you've missed out. I'm not a fan of his wife at all because she forbade him from seeking public office. I understand it, but we needed him, and she wouldn't let him.

I'd rather the federal gov't have this power, that is buffeted by elections and the judicial branch, than unanswerable corporations whose only motivation is profit.

That control will be exerted by someone. It could be pushed down to states. And large businesses hold lots of influence, and to some extent, power and control. It may not be a formal, defined power or control, but may exist in practice (see the whole discussion about twitter). You're right, power and control doesn't necessarily have to be at the federal level, but stripping it from the federal government doesn't magically solve the problem, just shifts the issues. Unless we are willing to return to a largely agricultural society and don't allow power to accumulate in private organizations such as businesses. But that'd require figuring out what to do with the much larger population we have and giving up many modern conveniences we take for granted. As well as reducing our influence in the world. You could push power (and responsibility) back down to the states (arguably the original intent), but that'll never happen now because many smaller, less productive states would never allow it since it will cause then to lose funding. What happens when everyone leaves say North Dakota for better opportunities elsewhere, and the state loses any real economic power, reducing tax revenue, and preventing the state from providing basic government services? Does the state default? Get annexed? Who takes care of the citizens for basic services (like vital records or courts)? Does a state like California then get more say at the federal level because it contributes more to the federal government? And if not, what is it's incentive to stay when money flows out of state without a perceived return in value?

The basic problem is the government has too much power and control. If we could dial it back to what it was intended to be, then it wouldn't matter who was in the White House or in Congress. With so much direct involvement in the lives of every American, the stakes are too high to let the other side (whichever side that happens to be) be in control.

True that. It’s not going to do jack. Moderate dems still have to vote with full up communists. Just like moderate reps will still have to vote with full up Nazis. Ranked choice voting and a transition towards a parliamentary system is the solution. But that would require the nation to admit that the two party system (which is great for those currently in power) isn’t working.

The fact that we view people with a different political opinion as "enemies" is a big part of the problem.

So your fellow Americans are your enemy? Because they espouse a different viewpoint? Isn’t this this the same position that you criticize radical leftists for taking? Is the answer to the radical left an even more radical tack from the right? That seems to be the position of a lot of my countrymen at the moment and it’s what concerns me most for the future of our republic.

Correct me if I’m mistaken but it sounds to me like you are arguing that conservative America should complete its isolation from the rest of our society by sealing themselves into an alternate world that ensures they never have to consider opposing views again. Is that right? Sounds like the most extreme argument for “alternate reality” yet. GLWT.

As unfair as it seems or is in practice, it's still their sandbox to play in. Part of the challenge is just the sheer volume of posts to moderate, so most moderation is retroactive after something has been posted, subsequently reported, and adjudicated. Automatic takedowns create other problems (like DCMA takedowns on YouTube against original content or fair use content). So yes, if one political leaning doesn't like a platform, make your own.

The 16th SOS owned a bar in FWB for many years, the Fireside. Many a debrief happened there.

So THAT’S why all the hand sanitizers around the squadron smell like tequila...

Care to explain how you came to this conclusion? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I don't know, I'm really split on this because I hold Trump 95% responsible for what happened. I do think though we need to recognize noone held a gun to the rioters head and told them to do it. But I've read his speech in it's entirety and he never overtly says to commit a crime. His language was aggressive but we tend to allegory politics as a war often, so on its own language wasn't immediately hair raising. What I mean when I refer to allegorizing politics is we refer to swing states as battleground states, etc... That said, in the position he's in, he needs to recognize his words are amplified. A mentor I knew once told me when a General whispers, the airmen hears megaphone. Ever person down the rank ladder hears a comment slightly louder until your A1C hears it as the most important thing happening in the AF right now. I don't know what's bring shit posted on parler but I can't immagine it's that far out of expected norms. Parlers TOS do prevent inviting violence. Based on the comments Twitter banned Trump for which were entirely innocuous, I can only assume people are making huge leaps to assumptions with this. "Oh my God, someone on parler said Republicans have a voice! That is going to spark a riot!"

No I'm aware. I'm a vocal supporter of net neutrality, but I'm surprised how many people here who advocate net neutrality and then think this is ok. I'm speaking more so about the removal of parler from app stores. "Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.[4][5]"

Wow.... And just like that my fantasies of how awesome the guard is were broken.

Amazon, Apple or Google can cancel or end whatever contract they like, in my opinion, as long as they’re doing so legally. Parler will have to find someone else, or make their own solution. Such is the cost of business.

While I agree, we already have the ability to vote out whoever we want. Nobody does. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates

Stick with the UPT boards - patience.

everyone in DC is bought and paid for. doesn't matter the "R" or the "D" (sts). if you think the most powerful government in world history isn't corrupt....we are probably way worse. WE NEED TERM LIMITS

Go spend some time down there. Then come back and tell me we’re the same. No contest brother.

I find this guy’s backpedaling laughable. He just found the flexcuffs on the floor and was looking for a cop to give them to? He assumed he was “welcome into the capitol building” as the mob was storming it? He is just now realizing that his actions will have consequences and is trying to hold onto his job and his retirement. I feel bad for his family. He is 53 with a wife and three kids. Wonder how they feel about dad’s “patriotic” actions? He knew there would be consequences for an action like this (or at least he should have). I hope it was worth it for him.

That clip was refreshing. Bravo

Both parties are corrupt, our govt is bought and paid for and they don't give a shit about you.

The real reason behind storming the Capital...

I wasn't a fan of peanut oil, though it works well enough that I'd use it if I ran out of my usual popping oil (especially over canola oil). I suppose avocado oil would work based on smoke point, but not sure how it'd affect the flavor, and is more expensive anyways. But you are 100% correct on the seasonings (Lawry's seasoning salt is my go-to seasoning, but I also have Tony Chachere's Creole Seasoning available with my popcorn supplies for when I'm in the mood for something different) I guess I'll fly my nerd flag: did a project during an experimental design class to determine the "best" jalapeno corn, as defined by popped volume, crispiness, and heat. Conducted a screening experiment looking at several variables: compared peanut oil vs the orville redenbacher popcorn oil, small amount of oil vs more oil, small amount of jalapenos (1-3) vs a more generous amount (6-9), and cheap popcorn (generic cheap kernels from the commissary) vs expensive (orville redenbacher) popcorn. Long story short, after a ridiculous number of batches of popcorn (70ish), the expensive kernels, more oil (3-4 tbsp oil to 1/2 cup kernels), and 6-9 jalapeno slices (literally, and cooked off for about a min before adding the corn, mt olive brand for reference) had the best success. The orville oil was a slightly more consistent with producing the results and flavor I wanted, though wasn't statistically different from peanut oil in producing the volume, crispiness, and heat I was looking for. Wish I could find the paper, but it's lost to blackboard online and I can't find my copy on my laptop. Outside the experiment, too many jalapenos adds too much moisture and makes for soggy popcorn, and is brand dependent, so I'd recommend sticking with one brand of jalapenos for consistency. I like mt olive jalapenos since they are sliced thin and crisp up consistently without being too hot (which means more crispy jalapenos per batch of corn). The Whole Foods bulk mixed popcorn kernels also works very well, and holds onto the jalapeno heat and flavor very well, maybe too well, and is great when I want a very spicy corn. Coconut oil makes for very crispy popcorn, but you've got to add melted butter after the fact, or use flavacol, otherwise it's a bit bland. If I want spicy corn but I'm out of jalapenos, about a tablespoon of sriracha sauce right after adding the corn works, though you lose out on the delicious crispy bites of jalapeno. And the infidel corn earlier in the thread is great, though the extra cleanup due to bacon grease makes it a once in a blue moon treat because I'm lazy. ETA: this is based on my experience in my home popcorn machine

I have a sneaking suspicion "variant" is a way to keep the public mortified by the virus.

I’ll tell you what, I feel like we are really at a good spot to start to worry about this. I mean, there is really nothing else going on right now, we should drop everything and really dig into this one.

I'm sure the Russian and Chinese Air Forces just published similar guidance.

There are many great truths to be extracted from the original "Star Wars". One of those truths is that the orange flight suit will return in its full glory.

My best tactically minded instructors don’t want to teach at the FTU. They want to fight and do ops. And I want to keep them in the fight inspiring and leading and teaching. It’s a fallacy to think I could send them to the FTU and they’d sustain motivation after I crushed their career aspirations because they were good. That’s how we lose our best, not how we fix broken systems. I have other great instructors who enjoy teaching the basics. Those are the IPs I wish I’d had when I was new and they are a precious resource. Managing instructors is a matter of matching talents to missions suited to their personalities and desires.... just like managing anyone. Totally separate from the discussion of appropriately matching talent to task is the question of what to do about “bottom folks.” It’s a huge challenge. There’s more options as officers age (although never a good place) but no where I can send a bad captain without the gaining unit suffering.

well, airline pencil tabs got MAGNUM'd out here today. Not an airline guy, but considering the bent of the SECAF letter was the presumed liability of whatever ethno/race-identifying historical patches were still in presumed circulation, homing-on-jam on the airline/"outside agencies" thing was the weirdest flex to say the least. 🤷‍♂️