jazzdude

If you've got the money, you can afford better toys. Or to buy things as status symbols. A g-shock or timex watch is accurate and costs less than $100, yet many pilots will still spend several thousand dollars for a watch that is much less accurate. You could even get a smart/gps watch for $500-700 that's accurate with way more functions than just time/date/stopwatch.

Looks like some stuff in Europe changed somewhat recently for Google and news: https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/business/google-plans-to-pay-publishers-1-billion-over-three-years-for-their-content/amp_articleshow/78426856.cms https://www.reuters.com/article/alphabet-publishing-eu-int-idUSKBN26M5O4 Google gave in and is going to pay news publishers in certain instances for news on a new Google news app, and it also just decided to take the same deal in Australia. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/17/google-pay-news-corp/ Facebook is still pushing back, since their business model is different than Google's. Facebook doesn't want to pay for news shared by users, so it's easier and cheaper to just not show news. Google killed it's social media platform (Google plus) long ago, so it's much easier for them to control what content is shared is distributed, and ensure that costs are kept under control. It'd suck if platforms had to pay to link to a news article, especially if the link is shared by a user. I know there's been a lot of good discussion here in BaseOps with links to articles to further some great debate; it's really hamper that debate if BaseOps had to pay a news provider for each link shared.

I don't think Facebook/Google/Twitter are doing anything different than any other large multinational company. They are doing things traditional news and media outlets already do. This is old news, Google did the same thing in Europe, and prevailed there. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in Australia. What the news outlets (really, Murdoch has been pushing this issue internationally) want is for Facebook to pay anytime it links to a news site in its news feed. So if a headline is shown with a link to a news site on Facebook, that news site wants Facebook to pay them for use of the headline. Even though the news site increases its visibility and likely the number of people going to their site by showing up on the Facebook newsfeed. All Facebook is saying is that they don't want to buy the link from the news site, and removed the links it would otherwise have to pay for in Australia. Facebook is not blocking anything; it's choosing not to buy a product from another company and provide it as a (free) service on Facebook. Australians are free to navigate to the news site directly and still obtain the news. The safety aspect mentioned in the article (emergency alerts) is a red herring. Essential emergency government services should not rely on a platform they have no contract with not pay to provide a service (in other words, no control over services provided to them by a business), because their access can be cut off without notice. Sure, try to be where the people are, but it shouldn't be the sole method of emergency alerts. A corporation that large, with the amount of money the big tech has (and not just big tech, but in other sectors as well), wields a significant amount of power and influence. This influence includes the market, and government. What's missing from this conversation is how much reach and influence traditional media outlets *already* have, and how it's lobbying to keep that influence and profit. I'm curious how this would affect smaller news aggregators; will they go out of business since they may not be able to afford paying to include outside news links on their site?

What if electric cars pumped in fake engine sounds, like some modern gas cars? https://www.thedrive.com/tech/22834/from-acura-to-vw-bmw-to-porsche-car-companies-are-getting-sneakier-about-engine-sound-enhanceme Problem solved!

It's like playing a sport with some friends for fun on the weekend, versus playing a sport competitively. Higher standards and expectations, you're on someone else's time/schedule, more time studying ahead of the flight, and more focused debriefs following the flight (again, on a timeline). So it can be a lot more like work than a leisurely activity. Especially compared to flying as a private pilot going out to go sightseeing or get the $100 hamburger on your own schedule. Not to say it loses its excitement or can't be fun; you'll still find moments where you look out and take in the view and enjoy having one of the greatest jobs you can have. But then it's back to the mission/work. Big thing is to keep an open mind, and learn the techniques the AF wants you to use (for example,max relax roll vs relax level power for stall recovery, or time-turn-throttles-twist-track-talk for IFR turnpoint actions). But the air sense from your previous flying will help, and a lot of it is adjusting to operating at the pacing in the cockpit expected of a military pilot.

Generally agree, but Texas isn't having problems due to icing on windmills, they are having problems systemically, largely due to multiple sources of power struggling, particularly their main source of power (natural gas). https://www.wkrg.com/news/are-frozen-wind-turbines-to-blame-for-texas-power-outages/amp/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle

Mandatory service reinforces that identity and helps perpetuate and grow that identity. No disagreement there. Also, being a homogenous society ethnically also helps create a very strong national identity, as the two (nationality and ethnicity) become intertwined. Race doesn't matter, until it does. (If you haven't noticed, asians can be very racist, especially to other groups of asians, furthering that strong sense of identity). Though South Korea being all in during war is likely practical: they are a small country geographically, and surrounded by water on 3 sides and an enemy on the other, so they don't have much of a choice. Everyone has to play a part, because you just can't hide it escape the fighting. Same with Israel. Contrast that with us. How many people here would actively push their kids to volunteer for military service as a top option post-high school, even if it's only for an initial commitment before moving on to something else? Do you think making service mandatory would make the service experience any better (and build a positive service experience), or worse as resources are stretched thin? We're also a fairly diverse nation, with multiple races and ethnicities, so ethnicity doesn't act as a unifying bond. Our unifying bond is an idea, and not a physical characteristic in our population, which makes that bond tenuous when we disagree on those ideas and the direction we are heading.

What's to keep someone that doesn't want to do military service from eating a bunch of cupcakes to be deferred to Peace corps or something else that doesn't involve going to the infantry? I agree with some of the premises in the article you linked-it's not just what happens at 18, but requires an overhaul of K-12 education (and an increased emphasis on physical fitness) Plus, any veteran or service preference in hiring would likely go away with conscription, for both government jobs and businesses (likely lose tax incentives to hire veterans). It'd be expected to serve, so no bonus points from the government for serving or serving longer. Ultimately the question comes down to "who pays for this?" -Upfront infrastructure costs -Land costs -Basic pay and allowances for a large, junior force -Training for that large, junior, untrained force (likely at least half a year of initial skills training, unless you cut quality) -Feeding that large force -Equipping that large force -Purchasing a large amount of transports: probably mostly ships and trucks (a big military does you no good if you can't get them to the fight) -De facto nationalized healthcare for everyone, at least for a period of time in their life while serving, and perhaps as a kid to ensure they are healthy enough to serve (unless the plan is to "give out 800mg motrin like candy and tell people to hydrate and change their socks" and consider that a suitable medical plan). It's say your probably closer to acceptable with basic training and follow-on drill periods (like the Swiss). Mustering 16 year olds? That's just JROTC. It'd likely take a significant tax increase to fund all of this (ignoring any debate on the politics on if this even the right away to go, this would be a tough battle, especially for conservatives), as well as major changes to our education and healthcare systems. We can't even fund the military and it's operations now without deficit spending, can't imagine growing the force severalfold would be any cheaper.

Completely agree with you here, though it seems like the other assumption is that survival is looked at in military terms-the need to directly fight to hold your borders and avoid being killed. Though Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway seem to be exceptions to my theory, so it's probably incomplete. The challenge is getting the average American to buy into us being at risk for survival (at least enough to support conscription), especially when the threats and fighting seem so far away and conscription goes directly against the notion of individual freedom. If it was implemented, sure, long term it could be a shared american experience, but that transition will be very rough, for both the conscripts and for the military.

I think you've got it backwards. The identity and mindset existed first, which led to accepting military service as necessary for their survival, and not military service inspiring identity. I don't think mandatory service drives their identity. They've had to fight for their country and culture to survive for a long while, and have faced attacks and occupations (mainly from Japan, but also the communists) that galvanized who they saw themselves to be. They also have a real threat on their border that drives a sense of responsibility to their country, which I believe makes them accepting of national military service. Plus many of them remember what Japan did too the last century as well. There is also the drive to reunify families turn apart by the north/south split, but that's facing fast as the generation old enough to have ties across the border are dying off. So the factors that make national military service tolerable in Korea don't seem to apply to the US.

I agree with most of what you said. Sanctions wouldn't be a good play, but I'd fear we'd lose more if it came to it. Both us and china would get hurt by sanctions short term; it's just a matter of who can adapt and outlast the other. Sanctions are just a nice word for siege, and it only works if you can apply enough pressure. But if trade stays open, well, the siege becomes ineffective unless you can close off the other lines. Iran has done well enough keeping it's trade and and economy going and to keep it's regime in power, so it's unlikely or sanctions will have any effect on them unless we get more buy in from other nations to join our sanctions. Then again, Russia and China may continue to trade with Iran, if for no other reason to spite US interests in the region while increasing their market reach, and as long as they continue to do so, our sanctions won't cause significant change in Iran's actions. China would also likely do well against long term US sanctions, unless we could get a large enough coalition to play along with us. And the thing is, they aren't waiting to fight us economically, they've been expanding their influence for a while now, so unless China does something egregious, other countries may not follow our lead since their economies are increasing tied to China's success. https://www.politico.eu/article/china-topples-us-as-eus-top-trade-partner-over-2020/ So China's in a fairly happy spot right now; they can pretty much say no to any investigation they suspect would embarrass them, and not really face any repercussions.

Until your orange orange turns into a purple orange... Got curious and Google did not disappoint! https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-26/science-reveals-why-orange-turned-purple-overnight/10230418

I mean, what other realistic recourse do we (or the rest of the world) have? Not sure going to war over them saying "nah, we told you everything you need to know" is justifiable. They'll just play the victim card, all while destroying anything that might lead to a different conclusion than what they have provided. Not sure economic sanctions would really do much since they'll hit right back with their own (plus, we haven't seen much movement with Iran in response to sanctions, and they are much more isolated from the world than China). Diplomatically, they have a great deal of influence within the UN. So they'd likely be able to deflect any accusations.

Sure, power companies could be hesitant to fire up excessive capacity to keep the profit margins up (wind is kinda free, vs coal or nuclear have a cost associated with increasing output). But ignoring that, you can only transmit so much power along a line. Try to pull too much power, and then stuff starts breaking and making the problem worse (hence the outages when demand looks like it's going to exceed capacity). So then it becomes a jigsaw puzzle to figure out how to route power from backup sources to where it's needed, and ensuring that at every point along the way you aren't exceeding capacity. While operating on aging infrastructure. Keeping the windmills going keeps more capacity on line, and reduces load across the system since more sources of power are available to feed the system. Put those two issues together, and without government forcing power companies to make improvements, or provide certain levels of power, it can be easy (and financially advantages) to make no improvements. Without regulations, there's no repercussions for failure. You also have to reduce demand. But people stuck inside are likely to use their electronic devices and entertainment centers to stay entertained, maybe run electric heaters and lights (who has candles these days?), and maybe continue to telework and live normally until power is shut off. So how do you get people to turn off their TV so people a few neighborhoods down don't get cut off from power? (COVID and the response to wearing masks makes me think this is pretty much impossible) And that also ignores improvements to infrastructure for protect against EMP or solar flares/CMEs. The Carrington event (1859) is an interesting example of what could happen to electronics with a major solar flare (in that event, it was mainly telegraph lines and equipment affected), and we had a near miss back in 2012. Basically, any long wire is an antenna, and strong magnetic fields (like from extreme solar flares) can induce large currents into anything connected to that wire, potentially damaging or destroying it. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/08/carrington-event-warning/

In theory, this is one of the benefits of a college education; exposure to new ideas and to people from a larger circle of people than your immediate community. Same could be said for athletic programs. You're always going to have loopholes, no matter how hard you try. Here's a challenge with having different service opportunities: there a limited number of spots for each, which creates competition, and the wealthy or well connected will try to get the "better" duty. Should someone have to do government service right after high school if they are headed college? What if they are on an ROTC contract? Or going to a service academy? Or studying a critical skill (like nuclear engineering)? What's about other community service, like firefighters or police? What about life circumstances? Single parent with a kid at 18? Or a couple with a kid? Deferments for pregnancy? Medical issues? (Sure, maybe you could find a desk job for them based on the health issues, but it probably isn't going to be infantry, creating an incentive to find a way out of the suck). What about if they had wanted to enlist in the guard/reserves? Or would they have to fulfill their AD stint first before transferring over to the guard/reserve (i.e. No more off the street hires)? Plus, what would the military do with a large influx of minimally trained people? Not just with finding things for them to do, but just the issue of managing and housing those people. What it would turn into is basic training being conducted in way more places closer to the conscripts' home, with their duty station close to home to minimize PCS costs. We'd definitely need to open up several more bases (billions of dollars easily) as well. 100% agree right here. I'm just not convinced mandatory national service is the best way to achieve this. Maybe better schooling, but that always gets looked at as being indoctrination or propaganda, which I guess is technically correct. But it's our indoctrination for the American way of life, so it makes it okay :) Then again, it's a difficult task to unify 330m people for a common cause, especially when individualism is so prized in our country and way of life. That individualism is a double edged sword- it helps make us as a nation great and a leader in innovation, but makes that bond to each other to tie the nation together weaker. Pretty much the only thing that does unify is a significant external threat.

This is a pretty interesting problem to solve in the to move towards relying on wind/solar power as a primary means of power. Not sure spraying de-ice or anti-ice fluid on windmills is practical or environmentally friendly. Maybe electrically heated blades? But probably too expensive to implement for the once in decade ice storm, unless power companies are required to implement something. In the meantime, probably pays to have a home generator for emergencies.

So where's that extra money coming from? Not sure people have an appetite for increased taxes, especially if they fear police (government) is corrupt. I would also assume that civil forfeiture laws would also need to be tightened, which puts additional budgetary pressure on police departments. I'd bet police aren't going to get more funding until the police start rebuilding the relationship with their community first, and that solution is very much a local one. Even though it's primarily a local issue, our modern lives also include going to other communities routinely. Things like going to the next town over to shop/attend events/etc. So the issue isn't completely a local one.

Even the American revolution relied on conscripts to fight for independence, so it's nothing new to our history. The larger question is "what duty does a citizen have to their country?" And if there is no duty or responsibility, then why does the country/government exist?

That's how my boss and senior rater (O-6, 1-star) both described the process to me, with a few caveats. The ops community requires people who want to command to apply to the command board: everyone (for ops) is a volunteer (no automatically making the command list, though as an IDE grad you're very competitive, if not a shoe-in). Some other non rated communities are "all in" (everyone in the career field at a certain rank is considered for command, no choice to opt out) AETC prefers to hire off it's list (required, but with caveats), but other MAJCOMs have bargained with AETC for a limited number of extra command spots. Usually a trade for AETC command spots in exchange for MAJCOM commitment to send IPs to fly the line. AMC specifically got command slots in UPT wings because it argued it was providing the bulk of IPs (more than it's fair share), there should be at least some MAF-selected leadership there to mentor it's people. I'm sure ACC has something similar to get 11F guys with no AETC experience into an AETC command spot. But if you want to command in AETC, you significantly increase your chances by being on the AETC list (need to have completed an AETC tour to apply for the AETC list) or both lists. My bosses both said the AF has gotten a lot better from what they've seen in the last few years about taking personal factors (join spouse, family considerations, etc) into consideration for assignments, including for command. Their view has been that Wg/CCs and AFPC seem to be more willing to work with individuals recently, versus when they got hired where it was "here's what you got." But the bar napkin still is there, so having a good network still helps significantly. The process sounded similar to how the myvector process works for regular assignments now, with bids from commanders and individuals, and AFPC review before the assignment is finalized. From what I understand, you can't really say "flying squadron only", but you can decline an offered position if you don't want it. If you decline, you won't get another opportunity to compete on that command board anymore. But supposedly the AF won't be vindictive anymore against your career if you decline command (at least if you decline before public release/announcement finalized), you just go back into the normal assignments pool.

Congrats on the school offer, it's great to have choices. Don't forget about Pensacola for Nav school, or NAS Whiting (not 100% sure if they still have an AF command position or there anymore). There's also PIT in San Antonio, though it's a different kind of student...But at least in a real city which should give you more choices for schools and a bigger airport to commute from if needed. Granted, that's only a handful of spots in the trainer world that are closer to civilization. It might be worth talking to some O-6s you may know about command (I realize your time is probably limited to accept or decline school). One thing my boss told last time I sat down with him to discuss career options/paths is that you'll have to make a choice going into the command boards-do you want to command regardless of location/job, or do you have certain commands in mind? Neither is wrong, but it's something to keep in mind as you make your decision with your family. The plus side is you'll be eligible to compete on both the AMC (core specialty) and AETC boards, so you'll have more chances to make command, especially if you make both lists and want to go back to AETC. I'm not sure if airlines also consider category/class in your flight recency, but you could also look into flying with CAP to keep flying and accruing hours if you don't want to pay to fly out of pocket should you end up somewhere non flying. Best of luck in your decision!

NCOs don't get vetted by the Senate, and it's not like she can get promoted any further without commissioning, so it's a moot point in this case. So yeah, that rule doesn't apply to her. That being said, it's our job as officers to lead and discipline our enlisted (and ourselves). I'm sure someone in the CSAF's office (or at least PA) has had a talk with her, and if not, well, I'd be disappointed. And if we don't handle the situation, Congress could decide to weigh in if it garners too much negative press. Which it hasn't, and likely won't. That's not to say her comments weren't wrong (they are), but there likely won't be a public admonishment. People cry about this being a one mistake AF, and then complain when leadership decides not to crucify people for a mistake. So long as the CSAF has confidence in her, she'll stay right where she is.

The Tulsa race massacre/black wall street massacre was pretty bad if you don't know much about it. It was the single worst racial violence incident in US history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/roaring-twenties/tulsa-race-massacre Estimates of death toll range from 75-300, but also 35 blocks of city were destroyed by white mobs, including 1,200+ homes and 200 businesses. Left about 10,000 black Americans homeless. Also crazy, private aircraft were used to bomb black Americans as well... It's a interesting piece of history that I never heard about until I was stationed in Oklahoma.

So what's your solution for differentiating a one time mistake and a pattern of bad behavior? The idea of putting a UIF after a certain amount of time assumes the person has been rehabilitated. But it also means if they are a repeat offender, their may not be any documentation that establishes that pattern, so they may slide by. It also assumes that bad behavior is captured on the performance report, which only send to happen if the behavior is egregious enough to drive a referral report. Our evaluation system is pretty poor as well- unless you have the secret decoder ring, it's very hard to distinguish between people outside of strats, which recently were reigned in due to way to many soft strats making it difficult to actually distinguish people. The army at least does above/below/center of mass to clearly state where that person falls. That also has some shortcomings (quotas for the rater, which can hurt in a unit that is above average) Basically, Congress is saying that it doesn't trust DoD's ability to vet it's own promotions, so they are adding requirements they think will happen. And remember, our officer promotions starting at O-4 are approved by the Senate, though generally they don't get involved, though they could, especially if something drives "excessive media attention."

Is it on the AF-approved survey list?...Or is the CMSAF going off script and ignoring AF policy?