ViperMan

The Soviets lacked the technology and were also fighting us, albeit through a three-letter. Could they have won had they not been facing Stinger missiles? Maybe. It sure made it more difficult for them to make any headway, though. Maybe China is a clown show. Time will tell. I don't think they hold any illusions about civilizing AFG, though - like we did. Bottom line - "victory" depends on how you define it. China's definition of victory, and therefore their objectives, won't be like ours.

It won't be like ours. Our experience was handicapped by a restrictive ROE built on the Western concept of morality as well as a false-notion that these people want to be like us, which led to us attempting to nation build. China holds no such illusions and therefore won't be constrained by any self-imposed rules. They'll crush whoever stands in their way and won't think twice.

What AFG needs is a bunch of remote controlled blimps with .50 cals and sensors attached to them. We can float them there for about 1000 years and just snipe Taliban and AQ from 15-20K feet. I bet we could get the cost of a terrorist down to about $1 - $2 USD. We could even make a new AFSC for it and give big puffy wings to the operators. Also, *announce* that we don't care about their government or their values. We're just there to kick ass, permanently. Don't saddle victory with any unachievable goals (schools, muh rights, "governing"). We need to look at this a long term tax we have to pay to keep the primitive world at bay. Let it develop on its own timeline and via its own accord.

I would love to be at the ceremony for the DFCs handed out for flying that many passengers out on a C-17 or130. It'd be awesome to here those citations juxtaposed with some of the OPR bullets that "laud" praise on how well the war is going - just take some of the heaviest hitters from the last 5-8 years. That'd make for comedic gold.

Let's be honest. This end-state for AFG was inevitable and was/is/has been a foregone conclusion. The notion that we were going to install a democracy there was absurd from day one. Period. Root cause = we defined success to be an unachievable goal from "go" - hence failure. It really is that simple. It's not Biden's fault we lost. It's not Trump's fault we lost. It's not Obama's fault we lost. It is Biden's fault we are losing in such an embarrassingly avoidable manner, however. That *is* his fault. We should be losing more gracefully.

Ehhhh, this is what happens when you make exceptions to rules. You get people who play games. Don't give one shit that his beliefs are "sincerely" held - as if it was up to a Chaplain to make that determination in the first place. Also, it's BS that M.E. countries don't have to shave to wear an O2 mask, but I do. But whatever, this is much ado about nothing. Just glad I'm not having to see this paperwork cross my desk. The military is full of arbitrary rules - those are the only ones that should be eligible for "exception." If it's safety, good order/discipline, combat, etc, you follow the rules. No exceptions. Don't like it? Go sit in Leavenworth for the rest of your commitment, your choice. Oh, and the section of the bible that deals with masking and non-masking is right underneath the one that exempts Weapons' officers from SOF...

*If* your standard is 100% prevention of COVID, then yeah, you're right. Here is a study that quite convincingly demonstrates that masks diminish the amount and distance COVID will spread. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0015044 Will you get it hanging out in a room with a COVID+ person for a couple hours face-to-face? Probably. The point isn't that it's a silver bullet. The point is that it reduces the probability that you catch the bug. So in that sense, yes it slows the spread. *Also* there will never be any 100% definitive proof, because we don't have two separate universes that we're testing masks vs no masks in an open planet. You either believe the common sense argument that it reduces the energy of your breath thereby reducing how far COVID can go, or you don't. Which it does, because it's hard to breath through. Note: I'm in the camp that thinks masking up is ridiculous at this point. That said, I can still admit that masks have some positive effect. BL: Get the vaccine or don't. Take your own chances. Everyone at this point has had the opportunity to get it if they so choose. I'm vaxxed and am going back to normal now.

I agree that masks slow the spread, but comparing death rates across these countries is fraught with difficulty. For starters, Japan's obesity rate is ~4%. In the US, not one state has less than 20% obesity. Stated differently, our skinniest folks are 5x fatter than Japan - some states approach or exceed 10x! So what amount of the difference is due to their mask adherence vs. them just being much, much healthier in general? I don't know, but I think I'd rather have a BMI < 30 and not wear a mask than rely on a cloth mask to save me. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html

To be totally clear, I don't think it was an intentional release, though I am firmly in the camp that it was an accidental leak. Thaaaaaat said, there are plenty of viable, and reasonable answers to all these questions. Ruling it out is premature. I think the most important thing to look at is how China maneuvers in a post-COVID world. How does the world become re-aligned, or how do things take shape in their favor (or against ours) in the near term future. Those questions will be far more illuminating than ever hoping for some smoking gun to be reported in the NYT or WSJ. 1. How about deniability? Worst case, is now "ooops, sorry everyone". 2. To create chaos and throw the world into turmoil. How about it doesn't need to be Captain Tripps/End of days. It just needs to fuck everything up economically. War by other means, and such...

So now Pizzagate, Qanon, and microchipped vaccines are akin to wanting a secure border? Or wanting the people who are here to be American, want them to be American, and be actual participants in our system...not just here for a handout from the greatest civilization on Earth? Do you seriously not think there are legitimate problems being identified by the right in this country? Or is everything racist? GTFOH.

We're currently pushing it to the CAF...

Really? You're about to lose sleep? Here, grab ahold of these:

Military: Established that you need to take vaccines. Experimental vaccines, open question. Civilian: Doesn't matter if it's a sugar pill. Can't make anyone take it for any reason whatsoever.

What he means is that you don't automatically give up every right you have. He leaves room, though, for some rights to have been "given up."

I'm with you in theory, but there is established precedent for vaccination being required for people in the military. Anyone in the military today knows this. That said, "experimental" vaccines are probably an open question - in my legal opinion (which isn't worth shit, btw). J&J ok. Phizer/Moderna, you may have a case.

Without resorting to bible thumping, do you not recognize or understand that a pregnant woman is two separate (albeit connected) beings with different DNA? A person can be charged with double murder if they kill a pregnant woman. At the very least, we can at least agree that our laws are schizophrenic on the issue (at best). Conflating these two issues is a stretch. And throwing the "bible" poop at the wall in an attempt to relegate the view to a simple-minded, and/or limited to religious objection is side-stepping the actual issue. My gut tells me that abortion is wrong - at the very least becomes more wrong the further into a pregnancy a woman gets. I don't need to appeal to any book or religion to arrive at that conclusion. Yours is the same argument anti-gun nuts make when they "ok" gun use for hunting or sporting. Which, sorry to say, is not what the 2nd amendment is about.

Uhhhhhggggg. Reading the last few pages of this thread is a bunch of tiresome strawmen and red herring. A bunch of people trying to convince others' that they have the correct version of "because X". News flash: the ground truth, fundamental point is that you have rights in this country. One of those is the right to bodily autonomy. Notwithstanding military exceptions, if you don't want to take the vaccine for a valid or invalid reason or no reason at all (spite), that is your RIGHT. You don't need a because. No one gets to fucking tell you different around these United States. It's that simple.

Yeah, I certainly don't either. But it does concern me that I see similar narratives being talked about in other outlets. It concerns me more that these come from so-called serious outlets. Fox may be biased towards the right, but I don't see actual, overt racism passing on that network. The example cited is particularly egregious, but it's not unique. I came across a CNN article (which I begrudgingly admit is a source I frequent) that glorified the act of quitting. I thought the take was ridiculous, and (of course) so did other conservative news outlets. That clip was the central subject of one of those articles which rightfully identified it as racist. Let's hope you're right.

Exquisite logic. Unfortunately it's because that approach doesn't have the unstated, but desired, effect of stigmatizing the unvaccinated.

I'm triggered by our societal reaction to her act, as embodied by the liberal media, not the act in and of itself. As others have made clear, it's her body, her choice. No one should ever be forced to participate in something they feel is against their best interest. That said, the media is using the story as a mechanism to continue to centralize topics they want to talk about, in a light they wish to cast them. For instance, MSNBC's Nicole Wallace called out "doughy, white, right-leaning, losers" in order to talk about how "f'd up" our country is. That's the story's actual utility for the media, and is the actual reason it's being talked about. That's what I'm frustrated by. It's being abused to continue harping on the race trope. Sadly, the host in the clip below is unironically racist herself. It would be funny if it were satire; unfortunately, she's being completely serious. See for yourself how a racist statement it just tossed out by someone who is taken as credible. Imagine, if you will, had the statement been along the lines of "malnourished, Chinese, bat-eating, weasels." Would anyone tolerate that for a second had it been an utterance by Trump? Should it be tolerated as 'ok' by one of our major (so-called) serious media outlets?

Nor does it mean worse. There is information that matters, and there is information that doesn't matter. Models that contain information that doesn't matter, learn things that don't matter (i.e. are false). All things equal, models that contain a greater amount of "mattering" information vs. models that contain "non-mattering" information are better. Hence my comment that the model as presented contains information that matters, and is also able to be collected uniformly. I just don't think there's much else in the way that matters to be collected re: pilot candidates - and a model that says you can get to a 94% predictive value agrees. RE: invisible factors: What would appear, however, are large, unexplained - and inexplicable - deviations from the model. Those deviations (outliers) would lead whoever is using the model to question what the hell is going on - no such deviation is present in the model indicated, as it is able to predict with 94% accuracy who would graduate. Models that don't account for latent (hidden) variables - what you're addressing - don't approach 94% accuracy.

I agree it'd be great to have more pilots, and if we could get to a 94% graduation rate, that'd be awesome for us and the taxpayers. But already we're at ~85%. The question I would ask is why is there a need to change the approach to selecting those who attend UPT? The only reason I can think of is because it's not currently working - which it clearly is by any actual metric. So it must be something else. The average US high school graduation rate is about the same (~88%). The average 4-yr college graduation rate is ~33%, and gets up to ~60% after 6 years. Was there a pilot shortage in the 60s, 70s, and 80s? I don't remember and didn't look it up. The bottom line, IMO, is if the USAF really wants more pilots, they need to get serious and open up another UPT base.

I'm intentionally being mildly derisive. I honestly don't really care that she took a knee, as it at least appears to be justified. What I'd rather point at is how such an act would be viewed by the PTB if Michael Jordan did it in game 6 after a poor quarter. Or if Pat Mahomes had done it after throwing an interception in the first quarter of the super bowl. Does anyone honestly think there would be a mass movement coalescing around those individual's decision to "take care of themselves" and throw in the towel? Of course not. Neither of those athletes (and most others at their level) would be given that benefit of the doubt. The would be blasted on ESPN the next day, perhaps rightfully, for not staying on the field of battle. Sports is certainly physical, but playing at any level requires a certain level of mental fortitude - overcoming that is what makes someone great - not quitting. So I just view it as one more example of coddling that is going on. We should be instilling fortitude and an attitude of "never quit." Yeah, this.

Who cares about gymnastics?

Ok, you really made a strong point and focused heavily about certain types of data being excluded being a problem, though - I didn't get much in the way of descriptive vs. predictive modeling. In any case, descriptive models / analysis don't exclude data from a data set - predictive models / analysis do exclude certain data from the model. In a typical case (not sure what the specific split was in this study), the a data set is split 70/30 into a training and a test data set. The model created using the training data is then used on the test data (not present in the model) to predict a certain variable (outcome) - in this case whether or not someone graduated from UPT. So this study is certainly using predictive modelling techniques. To your point about other factors affecting certain variables limiting their value, if there is data that can indicate a true/false or yes/no or 1/0, then machine learning techniques are flexible enough to account for them. If the data isn't present, in many cases, it'll be a wash in the aggregate. But to answer your point directly, having a degree doesn't make you a good pilot, but having a degree is an indicator that you are more likely to graduate from UPT. And further, the more difficult the degree, the higher the likelihood you'll graduate. Though to be extremely clear, this is not shown by the data available, since every USAF pilot has a degree - it's not variable among pilots - but it is well understood to be generally true.