~$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$~

I want a girl with a short skirt and a LOOOOOOONG skirt underneath it so I cant see her ankles.

I believe they were from Louisiana, though this was a while ago.

Pff, you’re such a poser! You don’t even know Sprey was one of the lead designers at parker brothers on the Ouija Board project!

So your engagement with the criticism is to… claim a single piece of criticism supports your point, and ignore the rest (which is devastating to both your argument and your credibility). And what you are claiming it supports doesn’t even make sense within your earlier comment.

Convincing!™

Also the F22 was never available for export - no stealth tech is. Trying to present it as rejected by the world is just comically transparent.

Their journalistic reputation is quite deserved - despite many valid criticisms, they do still do incredibly good and important journalism. Their opinion pieces ride the coattails of that work to make them seem like they have any value. I honestly do not think I have ever seen a NYT opinion piece that’s not just absolute garbage.

The idea was to provide a counterpoint to the liberal ‘bias’ inherent to reporting all news - but that idea has long since stopped being reasonable, and it really needs to be just given up on.

This is an op-ed piece, and NYT op-eds have always been godawful. I don’t know why we care about it now, or why we’re only just now using it to criticize the NYTs journalism (which has more than enough to criticize all on it’s own) but that’s where this has come from.

Edit: Not entirely relevant to the first point, but I just went and gave it a listen and… The above piece is fucking embarassing. Really. That they’ve had to change the title three times would seem to indicate they agree. It’s the moderator (an absolute dickhead) and some conservative weirdo refusing to answer a very reasonable and simple question with just utter nonsense. Hopefully the justified backlash to this continues, and they eventually clue in and just take it down. Fucking joke.

You think the illustrious designer of the A-10 would hang out here?? Come on, be reasonable.

(What does “swag” mean here?)

I’m going through the accident reports now, and so far the only one blamed on a pilot has been when the pilot ejected at 500mph (or thereabouts) and mulched himself in the air-stream as a result. That seems pretty conclusively to have been his fault, and they haven’t ever blamed it on a technical failure. Otherwise, there’s a couple of maintenance issues, two foreign objects getting sucked into the engine, one time the canopy got stuck… none of these have required any retraining thus far.

Update: Ah, they blamed the pilot for an accident that turned out to have been caused by a flaw in the emergency oxygen system that required a handle redesign. Another pilot error, though not retracted, was that the landing gear was retracted too early during training. The “chafed wire” you mentioned was never blamed on pilot error since the plane data recorder confirmed that the hydraulics were on fire.

More Update: So… Sixteen total crashes. Five of which were writeoffs, the rest repaired. Only one of which appears to have been erroneously blamed on a pilot. None of which required retraining beyond “the handle is shaped different now”.

… Did you actually read these reports before making these claims?

But it is incredibly telling that they were “introduced” in 2005 and the final delivery to the US military was in 2012.

Also, side point, what does this mean? The last B-52 was delivered in 1962, and those have been a mainstay of the USAF for the 63 years since. What does “having enough of the planes with a very niche role” indicate about that plane’s capabilities?

They’re just parroting the BS about “western weapons are too reliant on technology”. Oh no, complicated things, so scary. It’s unfounded and pretty prevalent in russian-aligned commentary as more and more information comes out about the spectacular technological shortcomings the russian military has been trying to hide (like how the much celebrated and modeled SU-75, russia’s 5th gen steal “equivalent” to the F35, turns out to have been made of plywood. And as far as anyone knows, it still is, we’ve never seen one fly).

If they push the line that advanced equipment is bad then they don’t look so pathetic. Unfortunately, people who dont know any better also wind up believing them.

The american southern accent is a fucking insult to all languages everywhere.

The joke is about how many variations on pronouncing the name “Euler” there are (Ew-leer, Oiler, Yoy-lir, etc), via a key and peel sketch about alternate pronunciations of common names.

Yes, because the Russians have been smart enough to keep their ships in Russian-controlled ports.

Which means they’re somehow immune to being attacked by drones? Russia has had naval assets repeatedly damaged by drones (both aerial and seababies) while in port, and yet none of those many attacks have been enough to truly take down one of those ships (also there are several examples of a warship being damaged, and even destroyed, while not in port by a drone… specifically by bayraktar TB2s firing missiles) (Might need to be doublechecked on that claim, I think it’s right although I didn’t did too deeply into the exact location around snake island several vessels were at when they were destroyed so they may have actually been in ports and I was just unable to confirm that)). The attack on the Moskva used (at least) two Neptune missiles, which cost between $1m - $1.5m each, and boy did that work spectacularly.

Again, I’m not disputing that any weapon systems, under ideal conditions, can destroy any other weapon system (see again Digby Tatham-Warter (it was a Sd.Kfz. 234 not a panzer, whoops)). What I am disputing is that the drone units absolutely have that budget (and more), and yet despite having ample choice of high-value targets, and their choice of an inventory of extremely versatile drones, they have yet to find a solution that works, even when the ship is in a vulnerable place near land and with limited maneuvering options.

What you’re claiming as a nearly forgone conclusion is much much more difficult than the thing they have already repeatedly tried and failed to do. The reasons to use missiles and planes to attack ships are manifold, as are the reasons to use drones in roles they are suited for. But they complement each other; the maneuverability of a drone is not somehow a straight replacement for the ability to carry a 500kg warhead.

^{edit: bayraktar is hard to spell}

“No, that doing something doesn’t count”

JFC I shouldn’t need to defend the dems, there’s so much valid criticism out there. But saying they’re not doing something as a way to dismiss the #1 example of them doing something is kinda… unreasonable.

They’ve shut down the government for more than a month holding out for healthcare, that’s not exactly form over function.

I designed games myself

How do you do, fellow game designers.

it is all just playing around with variables

“All game design is just changing numbers” sure, and all programming is just manipulating two values over and over and over. But the difficult part isn’t changing the numbers, the difficult part is the mechanisms that define how those numbers interact with other numbers. “Magic Numbers” have a place in game design yes, but they are not by any stretch how those systems are defined. If your game was created like that, it cannot have been very good…

How exactly is that an accessibility feature…? No seriously I sound like I’m being shitty (and that’s because in a small way I am, this conversation is deeply personally insulting) but I’m really curious why this is being considered accessibility when what we’re doing, the actual push for accessibility in gaming, is all things like allowing people to access the games not coddling people to where they have to have their own special extra-easy game modes.

Things like support for 3rd party controllers, key rebinding, compatibility with external sound processing equipment, video setting adjustment (remove particle effects or other visual noise, colorblind modes, onscreen hilighting) are all the things we’re actually fighting for broad inclusion into videogames. Mandatory godmode isn’t, and it’s so dumb that it sounds like some kind of philosophical false-flag dreamed up by the conservatives to discredit the concept of disability accommodation in general…

Game design is the entire driving mechanism behind gameplay.

Been a while since I’ve seen a good old fashioned tautology. Stop trying to be disingenuous, ‘difficulty’ (or if you prefer, ‘challenge’) is the #1 factor in game design. You either should know this, because it’s patently obvious, or you should just stop talking about this subject like you have any idea what you’re talking about.

Do you really think they completely redesign a game for every difficulty?

Strawman me harder, zaddy!
No, they don’t redesign a game for every difficulty - that’s absurd. But it does have a huge impact on every aspect of gameplay, and like I said, it’s far far from trivial to alter the abstract concept which defines things like the core gameplay loop.

My citation is myself

Yeah… Okay.

No, they didn’t?

It might be better to compare a modern example, the $4000 pricetag on NATO 155mm shells vs. $500 FPV drones. But for some reason artillery is in much higher demand, and accounts for far more casualties, than the FPV drones…

I strongly believe that if you gave $500 grand to a Ukrainian drone unit, they could find a way to sink a ship with it.

They have that budget, though. And yet none of the russian naval assets destroyed have been taken out by drones, let alone $500 FPV drones. And that’s the russian navy, who’s close in radar jams the ship-wide intercom (Moskva) and who’ve never demonstrated their own CIWS capabilities. It’s also ignoring things like the complete lack of the use of cheap drone swarms at any point in the Ukrainian war (and there’s technical reasons for that) - even operation spiderweb, the closest thing to a true drone swarm we’ve seen yet, only used 117 drones across all the deployment zones (and then those were still not truly simultaneously coordinated).

The argument that any weapon system can take out any other weapon system isn’t in dispute - there’s a confirmed kill on a panzer with an umbrella, for example. But what you’re presenting is pretty broad speculation that boils down to “Because I think this is right” and there’s not much to do with that.

The full quotation, by the way, runs:

“It has been said critically that there is a tendency in many armies to spend the peace time studying how to fight the last war” [Lieut. Col. J. L. Schley, 1929]

It’s not the presentation of a hard and fast rule, it’s a cautioning to avoid a lazy pitfall.

(I have a lot more I could throw out here and if I remember tomorrow morning I will, apologies for keeping it brief but it’s very late here.)