Lord Ratner

They are going to burn the furniture now that it's finally starting to come apart from the decades of abuse. Just wait, when the economy rolls over into a recession, they will howl for the Fed to start printing money again. Then we're really going to see some shit...

No clue, I've been out for 5 years already.

Okay I think I see where I'm missing the point. "Imaging IR missile" Imaging doesn't mean "visible light spectrum imaging" to me, because you can just as easily have an IR image. Imaging and IR missile. Gotcha. My B.

Don't think I said anything about AIM-anything. The physics of light transmission don't change based on the platform. "A white balloon" with zero additional heat source, as quoted, has a particular IR signature. A very, very, very mild one. Looks more like a shadow than an object, depending on the IR sources behind it. Now, the equipment attached to that balloon is a different story, and from the video of the first shoot down, it looks like it was the equipment that was targeted, not the balloon. Wonder why. Looks like the other balloon was mylar, which is yet another signature type, and much brighter than thin rubber

Not necessarily depending on what type of balloon it was. If it was a rubber birthday style balloon, then yes, it would have a different IR signature than the sky, but if it was one of the metallic balloons it would depend heavily on what type of paint was on it. Metal is an IR reflector, so if you look at a baking sheet pan through a thermal camera, it looks like you're looking at a perfect mirror, even though in the visible spectrum, you don't see a reflection. With the round surface of a metallic balloon, I suspect it would be incredibly difficult to get some sort of reliable lock on it. Depending on what angle you are coming at it from, it might be reflecting the ground, or the sky, or more likely some sort of distorted combination of both. But again, this depends on the balloon and whether or not the metallic surface was covered by paint, which emits IR predictably. I bought a flir camera a few years back and it's actually pretty neat to see the world in that spectrum. Yeah I got to see it in the military from one of the cameras on the plane for hours and hours and hours, but it's a lot different when you are looking at things within 100 ft versus thousands of feet away. Add to that that thin plastics and rubbers are nearly IR transparent, then even a rubber balloon would be a rather difficult target. If you look at a shower curtain through a flir camera you just see what's behind it. It does dampen the image a little bit, but not enough that I think you would have an easy time getting a lock on something made of very thin rubber from thousands of feet away. As you said, the sky is a very high contrast background (since there is very little heat being emitted from empty space), but that also assumes a clear sky

This was the inevitable end with fiat. Either the BRICS coalition creates a new currency bloc backed by gold (or anything not fiat-like) and the dollar is forced to abandon the money printing parade to survive, or the new currency bloc will act like fiat (because making money from nothing is the ultimate government dream) and thus pose no real threat to the dollar.

Well you said it: bullshit excuses. But at least in my case, I've seen maybe a couple instances of pilots going too far in 5 years. I've seen hundreds of instances of pilots leaning forward, even just considering your examples. The job is very well defined: What you do, what is and isn't allowed, and what the pilots are responsible for within the company. An example (for those not at AA). "Just one ping" means that when something is wrong/missing on the plane, the pilots make one call to the appropriate office, get acknowledgement, then wait. Maintenance call-out, missing catering, fuel increase, etc. You call once, then wait. Often in a chaotic airline like AA that call gets dropped. I can't count the number of times my captain is literally jumping out of his chair to call over and over and over to get the issue resolved. It's not our job. We are not paid to go above and beyond, not are we even encouraged to. Management takes for granted how much gets done on time because the pilots notice it, and so they must be taught. That means people will miss connections, weddings, funerals, etc. Sucks, but that's life. Our job is not a higher calling, it's just a job with a higher emphasis on safety, *not* timeliness. The military guys are usually worse. They talk the same game everyone else does, then immediately lean forward, sometimes literally while complaining about the lack of negotiating progress. It's comical, but also illustrative. We all want to git-er-done. And we are all trained to identify and avoid risk. Great traits for flying, terrible for bringing out your inner longshoreman.

There's a certain irony that the modern avatar of female empowerment is doing random things that men have been doing routinely for decades.

That's exactly why we get nowhere, unfortunately. When you pay me to do that job, I will. Until then, that family will have to deal with the repercussions of doing business with a company that can't negotiate a contract. I wish we didn't work in that world, but we do. That family is a meaningless number to the people running the airline. You take responsibility for their happiness and you are not only going to fail, but you *directly* impede the progress towards a contract. I hope that one day we will evolve beyond the private capital/shareholder obsessed/metrics-based corporatism that our system is currently stuck in. If we actually escape the government-funded stock market model we've endured over the last 30-40 years, I think we'll get back to the world where you make money only by providing a good product or service, not buying an existing one and cost-cutting into irrelevance while making the investors a quick buck. But we haven't, and for now we work for sociopathic accountants competing with each other over who can make the most while accomplishing the least. You want a contract from those people, you have to threaten what they care about. Like with many diseases, treating the symptoms (passengers being left to the predations of a shitty airline) instead of the cause (terrible management that doesn't understand human capital) can make the outcome worse for everyone.

Delta didn't stop. On the contrary, they forced as much flying into green slips as they ever have. Every pilot knows how to display their frustration. But the dirty little secret is that most aren't actually upset. That *might* change once Delta pilots are making ~20% more for the same job. Pilots are very attenuated to fairness, but that can't trigger from a hypothetical. But I still have to convince captains to just do the job as it is written in the books. Just yesterday I had a captain ask, "you're going to take a delay to get the windshield cleaned?" Yeah dude, it's night and it's dirty. Let's not even get into the fact we're in negotiations. These guys are programmed to get the "mission" done. It's in their DNA. Fighting for better compensation is not.

I'm guessing it'll be a bit more like this...

Yes! These are the two examples I always use. Bundy shows a bloodless use of the 2A. Waco shows a bloody use. Yeah, those people died, but because of their guns they forced the government to draw blood for what they wanted, and that price turned out to be too high, leading to changes in how the govt performs raids. The 2A is about increasing the cost of tyranny, not just allowing for a popular revolt.

Lol, the war on parents is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party.

I gotta say I think I'm with gearhog on this one. And I leaned towards blaming Russia when it happened. But... More than a few western intelligence agencies have investigated this, and not a single one has come out with an accusation. That's suspicious. The Biden administration unsanctioned the pipeline as soon as they took office, only to watch Russia march into Ukraine. That's embarrassing, especially when they then tried to "get tough" on Russia only to watch Europe keep buying energy from them. That's suspicious. The pipelines were blown up when everyone was worried about Europe going into a cold winter and having to resort to begging Russia for energy. So Russia... Blows up their leverage when they could just turn it off (and back on) at will? That's suspicious. Now if the "America didn't do it" crowd was blaming China, where there is a much clearer motive to force Russia to sell cheaply to them while also putting Europe in an energy bind, well that's a lot more plausible to me than Russia doing it. But at this point, you should always ask "why?" There are plenty of pretty obvious "why's" for blaming the US, as well as European allies that are worried Germany will once again sell out the West to get cheap Russian energy. And like I said, China could make sense too. But I'm not hearing a whole lot of "why's" for Russia, just that they're evil and crazy, which I believe, but so evil and crazy they are now slitting their own throats to... empower the American energy export industry? What is the Russian motivation for this that doesn't play right into the American goals of weakening Russia?

My concern is that we're going to do it anyways, and the price will not scale linearly with time. I'd love to see us move the massive manufacturing we put in Asia over the past 30 years into South and Central America. How on earth we thought it was a better idea to enrich economies on the other side of the planet, instead of the people who surround us, is one of the many mysteries of Washington DC. But we have to do it in a way that accepts they will eventually take over the manufacturing and associated businesses as their own, assuming we succeed in developing them. Countries can't progress as vassal states.

They don't have to be an arch enemy. Life doesn't have to be that cartoonish. They are an adversary, and they are a bad actor. That doesn't mean I want to send the marines into storm the beaches of Russia, but it also doesn't mean that I'm going to pass on the opportunity of a lifetime to severely weaken an adversary, who has brought this pain on themselves entirely, at bargain basement prices. Just look at how much money we spent blowing up primitive terrorists in the Middle East, and compared to the damage being done here at a fraction of the cost. And we don't have to worry about spawning an insurgency that hates Americans, we don't have to worry about Americans coming home in boxes (volunteers notwithstanding), and incidentally, it's a righteous cause. Further, we don't even have to worry about adopting a failed aggressor like we did with Japan and Germany, funding their rehabilitation. The only thing being destroyed in Russia, other than a couple of pipelines, is the military. Which is completely unnecessary to operate in a globalized world. They are losing the very thing that destabilizes the world we always wish they would just participate in. Nothing is perfect, but it is hard to imagine a more favorable set of circumstances for the United States. Getting ahead is about identifying opportunity and seizing it. This one fell into our lap.

Sorry for the delay. Sure, though it's the same generalized answer for most of the government actions that are broad-based. I benefit immensely from a peaceful world. My paycheck is larger and my goods and services are cheaper. I'm healthier because a world that isn't spending on war is usually spending on medical progress, as well as the discounts gained from the scale offered by a global customer base. I believe there are now several countries that are realizing they won't win the globalized world, so if we go back to polarized they can at least be king of their corner. That's going to be bad for all of us. While I do think it is inevitable, delaying it will prolong human flourishing. Conspiracies are only needed when the obvious answer isn't apparent. Who needs a puppet master? Russia and the West have been jockeying for alliance with the old Soviet countries for years, and Russia is losing that battle mightily. Add a wannabe-conqueror to the mix (Putin) and it shouldn't be surprising that this is happening. Did the other 100% of human history need excuses to invade and conquer? Russia would be occupying Ukraine if not for the US and the West. You might consider that more desirable, but I do not. The option where Ukraine is Ukraine and Russia is content with what they have and the rest of the world stops meddling is a hypothetical fantasy. I believe it was a misstep to rush the NATO courtship with Ukraine. Personally, I think NATO is useless, but a generalized alliance of Western-style countries is not a bad thing. Right now they seems to be getting a huge discount, though I suspect we are preventing them from any attacks within Russia. A seller can give away their product for free, until they decide not to. Either way, of course it's a choice. You are suggesting they surrender their land through negotiations. And stop trying to word everything others say to suit your narrative. "In exchange for killing Russians." What a bunch of nonsense. Russia is the one making a choice that is wiping out Russians. We are providing them a means to survive and defend. Whether or not that results in dead Russians is Russia's decision, not ours. They are two modes of survival here. Get Western weapons and fight back (on western terms), accept Russian rule, or die fighting Russia to the last person without help. That is a fucking choice, and like the rest of life, some of the choices are fucked. Interestingly, your position offers only the latter two choices, which I agree, makes it much less of a choice. Yeah, you get over that once you stop accepting the false choice they are offering you. Do what I say OR I will kill myself. But really it was always: Participate in my delusion OR don't. Often the threat suggested in the false choice is unrelated to the path you choose in the real choice anyways. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I believe it has been finalized for around 15 years now. Once the central banks unleashed QE, we lost. I like your analogy, because it fits pretty well with similar misconceptions people have about drugs. You don't just quit heroin or meth. Sure, there are a few much-ballyhooed examples of someone just quitting one day, but that's the exception, not the rule. We wouldn't have the "homeless" (i.e. drug abuse) problem if it were. Once you're hooked, there are only a few ways out: Something so damaging happens to you, at a point where you just happen to be sober enough to comprehend it, that you are scared into kicking the addiction. Very, very high rate of relapse. You are forced into sobriety by people with the power to force your actions through: Financial incentives (weak) Threat of disassociation (better, but weak) Physically overpowering you and forcing you into treatment (best, but only with very costly follow-through by the enforcer) You die. Now I've spent most of my life seeing option 3 as the best answer. I don't want anyone to die for the sake of it, but I'm not interested in helping people that don't want to be helped. But that was my false choice. Go broke helping them or let them die. But we were never going to let them die, it's just not what western societies do, so the true choice was Help them now (with force, if necessary) at great cost but with a better chance of recovery -or- Be their custodians for life later (also with force, and more often) at an even greater cost. So extrapolating that to global finances, the same options apply from above. But we are the top dog, for now, so no one can force us. But we are still hopelessly addicted, both the politicians and the voters. We are not going to kick this habit on our own. Option one from above would be the Global Financial Crisis. Didn't last long, and we ended up being less responsible in the aftermath. Option two would be the collapse of the fiat system, and the associated chaos that will follow. Option three would be us spending into oblivion, then being conquered. Option two is my bet, with three being unchoosable and one being a fantasy. So if two is the only option, positioning ourselves for that reality is the best course, shitty though it may be.

How many hundreds of billions have we invested so far? Most corrupt? You know Russia is in Europe too, right?

A sadly relevant comment considering the trans insanity from the left.

Did you change your username, torqued?

1. In what reality am I supposed to make geopolitical (support/oppose) decisions based on my personal physical or financial health? I must be reading that one wrong. 2. Sacrificing lives? Show me the American that is forcing the Ukrainians to fight. FFS. They can end this war tomorrow. Are we sacrificing Russian lives too? Is everything our fault? Power of the seller. You want an iPhone, you pay the fee Apple charges. Want to use the app store? You sign their EULA first. Lets try taking the whole quote this time: A little different when you don't selectively quote. I have. And? I don't get your point. Are those Americans beating them? Have there been intercepted emails from Washington telling the Ukrainians they better get in there and fight, or else? How about some of the Russians raping kids and disemboweling them in front of their parents? No stomach turning there? War is fucking ugly. You show me the war that was civil and maybe we can talk, but until then this is just another dream that we can't base our foreign policy off. Read the tea leaves. We aren't going to responsibly-spend our way out of this mess. If you haven't figured that out now, I envy your optimism, but we aren't. We will spend until we hit whatever level triggers a massive upheaval that leads to the end of fiat (again). We'll get back to fiat one day, but everything goes in cycles. So between now and then we are going to spend XXX dollars of fake money, and I'd rather tilt the distribution towards spending that will weaken our enemies and strengthen our industries so we win the recovery. Not spending on the good things does not equal spending less. It just means spending more on the dumb things. Clearly you've never dealt with that type of crazy. Lucky, but until you have you can't understand it. I'm not upset about it, my life is pretty great. Most lives are a hell of a lot better, but that's because we are at a peak, I think. What's dark is what's coming, and I don't believe it can be escaped. Debts are always paid, and we have taken out huge debts to give everyone more than they are producing in return. That will have to come out of the next few generations, either evenly distributed (everyone has a lower quality of life) or unevenly (lots of people die, removing themselves from the list of debtors).

And that's their choice. But as long as they have to rely on our weapons, training, and Intel, they have to do what we tell them to do. Right now I see no reason to change the status quo. The Ukrainians want to keep fighting, and that's absolutely their choice, and I'd like to see more dead Russia soldiers and smoking tanks for however long they insist on invading a sovereign nation. And at bargain-basement prices, no, IDGAF about the spending. You're posing an alternative that doesn't exist: No one in power is willing to do that, in either party, and the largest voting block isn't going to vote for it. We will not fix the problem until it materializes and slams us into austerity, and that's not going to be a time-based event, it's going to be a debt-based event. Spending on Ukraine pushes us closer to that inevitability, sooner. That's good. Otherwise it would just go towards the nonsense domestic spending. You want to talk about appealing to the extremes? Your fairy tale let's just put the money towards responsible government spending is the most unrealistic thing I've heard in this thread. I wish it weren't, but it is. And I really don't give a shit about nukes. Maybe you guys have never dated a truly crazy woman, but I have. Eventually every fight they lose gets to the suicide threat. The ultimate trump card. But what are you going to do, be a hostage forever? Fuck it, you want to kill yourself over breakup, go for it. If Russia intends to unleash nuclear destruction over a failed invasion of another country, then they are operating on a different set of rules that we will never be able to follow. People will die, but we'll win that war. We're overdue for the fourth turning anyways: https://a.co/d/4gG2rqg

That's an easy one. Yes

Extremes are useful for lots of hypothetical conversations. They're not good for the ultimate making of a decision. If you're incapable of seeing how one could support you crane without supporting anything and everything that might help them, I'm not sure I have the capacity to make you understand. That was your question, and I answered it. If you have a different question, let's hear it.