So many hours spent playing FTL. I was against getting Netflix subscription (we already had 3 streaming apps) until one day I noticed Into the Breach is available on mobile if you have a Netflix subscription. Can't believe I'm subscribing to a streaming service to play an indie game (wife turns out enjoy Netflix though).
| After it was founded in 1947, “it took the Air Force 25 years to figure out their mission,” he said. “We shouldn’t expect that the Space Force is going to be able to figure it out the day after we stand them up. It’s going to take a little while, and that’s okay.”
I’m wondering if this is a bit of a misquote. The 25 year period interestingly is the same as the existence of the Army Air Corp[0]. 25 years after 1947 would be 1972, and infer that the Air Force hasn’t yet figure out their mission through the Vietnam War, Minuteman missile development and emplacement, or most of the Cold War.
I personally think that the Space Force should have remained part of the Air Force until more capabilities were developed and a sense of mission.
As far as I can find, only two members of the Space Force have been to space[1]. I’m not sure there would have been support for the creation of the Air Force if only two Army Air Corp pilots had completed missions yet.
I think that they key difference is urban vs rural environments. Walls are effective in urban environments to focus the movement of people into checkpoints - in Sadr City or El Paso.
A difference is that along the non-urban sections of the US-Mexico border, a wall needs to prevent individual persons from crossing. In Baghdad, the reason for division was to prevent large munitions, vehicle borne IEDs, and scattered gunfire.
In summary, walls can be effective, and they exist where needed along the US-Mexico border. A grand, glorious, wall in the middle of nowhere will not be helpful.
I'm reading "Extreme Ownership" and it's a really entertaining read. The only offputting aspect is the nonchalant way they describe killing enemy combatants and the language they use is somewhat deragotory towards their adversaries. But I'm not sure you could survive sane through the things the authors went through without a bit of dehumanization of ones enemies - enemies that have killed your friends and colleagues and that you've had to kill yourself.
War is really ugly, but I liked the rational tone nevertheless and the techniques they use to stay focused and organized in a totally chaotic environment.
Systems analysis, nihilistic violence, group psychology, mindless cruelty towards animals, building leadership and team spirit - all applied to corporate consulting. 10/10 points, would read again. Would likely not want to be employed where this was considered the highest art of management literature.
Thanks for your take on this one. I was in Baghdad around the same time, Army, but a half step removed from combat arms. A decade removed from that now, I agree with you. In the moment, I think that dehumanization is a necessary side effect of combat. It lets you come to terms with everything slowly over time, rather than dealing with it all at once.
Interestingly, this was a management team read at my current employer. It isn’t seen as the only way to manage - more of a kick to have people own more of their responsibilities rather than deferring to others.
I had a 2008 Toyota Yaris with the same center speedometer. It didn't take that long to get used to it, and I liked having an additional compartment in front of the steering wheel (for papers mostly).
"Soak" is often used for "take" in engineering circles. "Zeroes" is often used for orders of magnitude in engineering circles. I've never before heard these put together in that fashion, however.
This entire thread is reminding me of my Marine Corps days. Super hung over? Hey doc, we need to practice our IV skills... sweet cold hangover relief. About to do an extra hard day of training? Drink a bottle of pedialite and grab the other camelback you put Gatorade in.
That was a good read, I had heard previously about the Canadian farmer who was sued for having the roundup-ready gene is his canola. Taking a look at the court record, it shows that it was a bit more intentional:
[39] In an attempt to determine why the plants had survived the herbicide spraying, Mr. Schmeiser conducted a test in field 2. Using his sprayer, he sprayed, with Roundup herbicide, a section of that field in a strip along the road. He made two passes with his sprayer set to spray 40 feet, the first weaving between and around the power poles, and the second beyond but adjacent to the first pass in the field, and parallel to the power poles. This was said by him to be some three to four acres in all, or "a good three acres". After some days, approximately 60% of the plants earlier sprayed had persisted and continued to grow. Mr. Schmeiser testified that these plants grew in clumps which were thickest near the road and began to thin as one moved farther into the field.
[40] Despite this result Mr. Schmeiser continued to work field 2, and, at harvest, Carlysle Moritz, on instruction from Mr. Schmeiser, swathed and combined field 2. He included swaths from the surviving canola seed along the roadside in the first load of seed in the combine which he emptied into an old Ford truck located in the field. That truck was covered with a tarp and later it was towed to one of Mr. Schmeiser's outbuildings at Bruno. In the spring of 1998 the seed from the old Ford truck was taken by Mr. Schmeiser in another truck to the Humboldt Flour Mill ("HFM") for treatment. After that, Mr. Schmeiser's testimony is that the treated seed was mixed with some bin-run seed and fertilizer and then used for planting his 1998 canola crop.
The argument is often made that GMOs are simply a sped-up process of the sort of guided evolution carried out by farmers since the start of agriculture so I find it hard to sympathize when the GMO proponents sue a farmer for doing exactly that.
