@mozz@mbin.grits.dev
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

mozz

@mozz@mbin.grits.dev

It has been 0️⃣ days since our last big fluorine fire

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

There is actually a right way to do this -- Ralph Nader talked about it in his article in Mother Jones. Basically, you decide on something you tactically can achieve, get a coalition together, communicate to the candidate that you're asking them to do X, Y and Z in order to earn your vote, and then follow through. That effectively puts pressure on the Democrats to start to pursue decent things instead of the grim neoliberal crap they tend to like to do when they're left to their own devices.

Just deciding you're going to make a private decision to protect the Palestinians by refusing to vote for Biden, when Trump is 100 times worse on the Palestinians as well as many many other people, doesn't make any goddamned sense. You're wrong two times over -- one for failing to be vocal enough about your priorities to make a difference, and then again by failing to support the obviously better choice (in cases like this where the worse choice is absolutely catastrophically bad, for the Palestinians as well as for many other people.)

The vote for aid to Israel is coming up this week, separated out from the Ukraine aid, and a lot of Democrats seem like they're waking up to the idea that supporting Israel is a monstrous crime. Infinitely more productive than voting third party would be to call your congresspeople and tell their staff how you feel about it, right now of all times.

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

For stoplights, the stop line being comically far back is often so buses and trucks have room to make a big turn without colliding with your vehicle. If you're at an intersection where the stop line is in an absurd place, it's usually better to stop there rather than stopping wherever and running the risk of finding out why it is that you were supposed to stop way back.

For stop signs, I have no idea. Maybe it means the traffic engineer was drunk that day or something; IDK.

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

Why the fuck hasn't anybody done this yet, at any point in the last 10-20 years?

Ticketmaster is the absolute textbook definition of an abusive monopoly in every way. They make it impossible to use anyone else, on either the fan or musician side, so that they can charge way way more than how much would be competitive. Hopefully the lawsuit takes 5 minutes "Your honor I move that they clearly have a monopoly and be sentenced to death" "Granted, fuck 'em, so ordered."

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

Oh look, it's the American government doing what the American government does

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

It wasn't congress, DoJ is executive branch

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

Tru dat. Small birds are more maneuverable. If it's pure bird-on-bird aerial combat, the bird with less mass will pretty much always have the advantage; they can get behind the big bird and just peck it from above until they feel like stopping. It's a very rare inversion of the usual rules of Nature Fight.

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

Bring back old Youtube

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

Not moving the knife lengthwise, just jiggling it around or rotating it, is the tell that it's fake. But yes it's incredibly convincing.

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

This needs to have a voiceover at 0:18, quietly asking "Do you have stairs in your house?"

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

I suspect that they deliberately played into the creepiness to make a more effective viral video

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

😀

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

How often do you get to get a close look at your biggest adversary fighting a battle at close range, and just observe how things play out

mozz, (edited )
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

Dude even just hearing these radio messages from the safety of my office is chilling.

"This is your warning. You have five minutes to clear the platform before we commence firing."

"I am going to sink you in five minutes."

Just think about you're at your work day and someone sends you some shit like that.

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

IDK about Iran, but the US ran a wargame for the Iraq war before they did it, and they had a pretty capable American commander running the fake-Iraqi side, and he absolutely fucked up the fake-Americans and then they stopped it and rewound and said he wasn't allowed to do the things he did the first time around and that time the US won.

All the strengths and weaknesses of the US military brass on full display all in one little anecdote 🙂

And yes guerilla warfare will fuck up any military that relies on money and technology, but in particular the US is especially vulnerable to it for a couple different reasons, I think

mozz, (edited )
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

I mean I get it

The guy got to make his point; I'm sure they're going to adjust some things in their strategy because of things he did. At the same time, you're gonna go talk to congress or the president or something and lay out what you want to do, and they're going to ask, okay what's the prediction for what'll happen? And you say well sir we actually did a little war game for it, and the Iraqis crippled most of our ships and the landing failed and we're still in the Persian Gulf for the most part but it's mostly a big clusterfuck at this point. So we're good to move forward, right?

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

Not really. They disallowed specific tactics that the red team had used to win, told them they had to turn on their radars at certain points (so that the fancy electronic countermeasures would work), told them they couldn't shoot down planes during a particular attack, things like that. For the most part the things that were different the second time around were artificial constraints on the red team.

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

Yeah, I agree with all of this. I said basically what you just said (with a lot less detail / citation) in my comment that starts "I mean I get it" (which I just recently edited to expand it a little).

I understand why they did it. I'm not saying it wasn't productive to do. I actually think the way it played out probably made it extremely productive to do, and it's to the US military's credit that that type of outcome can even happen, as opposed to most authoritarian structures where the red team would just understand that they're "supposed to lose" and wouldn't even try to do something like Riper did. You don't have to have the final "official" outcome be a blue team loss in order for everyone to learn valuable lessons from it.

What I was disagreeing with was your assertion that they just changed the conditions. They changed around the parameters and rules underlying the situation, specifically to railroad the simulation into a particular outcome. Even if I understand why that happened I can still point it out and think it's notable, no?

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

I looked this up. This is the reddit post, and this is the interview that it links to. I'd recommend reading the actual interview even though it's a little technical, instead of getting it through 3-4 layers of telephone-game from people who may or may not know what they're talking about or how to spell Van Riper's name.

I, honestly, couldn't completely make sense of the interview because of how deep into the details Kernan goes. I do note that he strongly disagrees with the thing I said that the second run of the simulation was railroading a certain particular result, and goes into some details of problems in the simulation that Van Riper then exploited, but he also says this:

I'll be straight up with you. I was the reason why Paul Van Riper was at Joint Forces Command. He's a very controversial individual. He is a good warfighter. I admire and respect him very much. I brought him in because he is controversial.

We were looking at it from an experimental concept perspective. He was looking at it from an exercise perspective. So I think if you -- you know, if you neck it down and look at it just from his perspective, an awful lot of what he had to say was valid. But if you look at it from what we were trying to accomplish in the way of setting conditions to ensure that the right objectives were satisfied, the experimental objectives, it's a much bigger picture, broader picture.

Now maybe that's just him being diplomatic and supportive not wanting to throw the guy under the bus. And like I say, I don't know enough about the details to really talk about what he's saying in terms of picking out details of what I was saying that's wrong. But to me it sounds like on the overall point, he's saying the same thing that me and @BombOmOm were saying: Van Riper was trying to win, blue team was trying to run a productive simulation, and those aren't exactly the same thing and they had to override him on some things to make the exercise into the second one of those things. But that doesn't mean he's completely wrong with everything he did.

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

It was a huge operation based on a whole bunch of new software and also on actual live personnel doing their part in the overall plan in person; it was wild.

E.g. I don't fully know the details but based on what I was reading today it kind of sounds like they couldn't position the ships where they actually would be for an operation, and they couldn't turn the auto-defenses of the ships on, because there was a bunch of civilian shipping in the area and they had to run their whole operation without the defense computer being active because otherwise it might get frisky and decide to blow up an oil tanker or something.

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar
mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

Absolutely heinous

I actually thought about tracking down the original source because it was so obnoxious, but I didn't have the motivation to invest the time in it

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

To me he did a perfect balance all the way up until the end. He didn't put up with a ton of nonsense or willing to waste a ton of time on it, but he wasn't like disallowing anything the guy wanted to say and he was still responding directly to everything, and being very direct about what was a problem and why.

That said, I am not any kind of judgeologist but I feel like 30 days at the end was way too extreme an escalation. That can be life changing. Give him 3 days if you want and my guess is that then he will realize that it's not just a game when he next shows up in court, and then everything can move forward. Maybe not, but that is my feeling.

mozz,
@mozz@mbin.grits.dev avatar

There's more than one species that can fully change its biological sex mid lifetime. It's not real common but it happens.

Male bearded dragons can become biologically female as embryos, but retain the male genotype, and for some reason when they do this they lay twice as many eggs as the genotypic females.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • lostlight
  • GTA5RPClips
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • osvaldo12
  • mdbf
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • rosin
  • InstantRegret
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • provamag4
  • everett
  • ethstaker
  • cisconetworking
  • normalnudes
  • Durango
  • modclub
  • anitta
  • cubers
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • Leos
  • JUstTest
  • relationshipadvice
  • All magazines