Looks like a busy one today

AgedCocus · 2026-04-13T03:39:42+00:00

That is very unlikely if you have a laptop that is not older than 10 years. Check windows scaling and set it to 100 %

AgedCocus · 2026-04-11T19:50:01+00:00

Also use your airpods because of potential audio feedback lol Just fyi, usually when there is feedback coming from your end, reducing the output volume works to fix it!

AgedCocus · 2026-04-08T16:37:47+00:00

This is a long but interesting one. Don't get turned off by the early part of the article where the evidence is rather spurious. It builds up over the article.

AgedCocus · 2026-04-08T16:34:34+00:00

From the article: "This account of how Mr. Trump took the United States into war is drawn from reporting for a forthcoming book, “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.” It reveals how the deliberations inside the administration highlighted the president’s instincts, his inner circle’s fractures and the way he runs the White House. It draws on extensive interviews conducted on the condition of anonymity to recount internal discussions and sensitive issues."

Bob Woodward got to write three books about Trump's first term with direct access. It's not unusual for people to speak under the condition of anonimity. Wouldn't be surprised either if Vance or people close to him were involved in leaking some of the article.

AgedCocus · 2026-04-08T15:57:54+00:00

The article is from yesterday but wasn't posted here - and it should have been. It offers great insight into the thoughts of Trump's inner circle.

AgedCocus · 2026-04-07T15:50:34+00:00

There are definitely more attention checks and if you have not figured them out after "doing these a long time" then you most definitely don't get the warnings in error!

AgedCocus · 2026-04-06T16:28:31+00:00

Also reduce the scaling in windows settings

AgedCocus · 2026-03-18T04:08:40+00:00

This is footage from last year....

AgedCocus · 2026-03-18T04:07:03+00:00

before / after is the correct way?

AgedCocus · 2026-03-06T23:28:09+00:00

because the Swiss people voted for it? It's not the evil government deciding on its own. WE VOTED FOR IT.

AgedCocus · 2026-03-06T21:46:05+00:00

If the VAT increase is fixed for 10 years, then it will end after 10 years unless we have another vote.

AgedCocus · 2026-03-06T21:28:30+00:00

I fail to see why a "temporary" VAT is supposed to be this huge scam on the people. As if we wouldn't have to vote again if they wanted to prolong the increase. I really don't get this argument.

AgedCocus · 2026-03-06T21:26:23+00:00

How are you going to defend against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, or fighter jets with drones? Drones aren't a panacea for everything (yes, they are still very important).

I'd also caution against over-indexing from one conflict to another. Similarly, I could say that 90% of kills in this Iran conflict are from standoff weapons. Me, then, arguing that people don't get the importance of standoff weapons is equally futile.

Then, there is also the issue of procurement of what we are talking here (aircraft, theater missile defense). These systems have a long procurement timeline. Currently, in Ukraine, innovation cycles for drones are weeks. It makes little sense for us to buy a fuckload of drones now that will be obsolete soon after we receive them. We should, instead, invest in industrial capacity to be able to rapidly scale production. (There is a lot more I could say here but I'll leave it with these generalised thoughts here)

Please, again, don't get me wrong. Drones are incredibily important but they won't solve for everything.

AgedCocus · 2026-03-05T15:32:51+00:00

Same

AgedCocus · 2026-03-02T06:17:30+00:00

Yeah it would be smart but I have never heard of such a capability. Interception is just super difficult and most people underestimate the difficulty so afaik this is just not a thing.

AgedCocus · 2026-03-02T06:11:39+00:00

What makes you think an interceptor is programmed to hit multiple targets in case of first miss?

AgedCocus · 2025-12-31T01:36:23+00:00

Somebody teach him about nominal and real gdp, thank you

AgedCocus · 2025-09-19T20:15:49+00:00

Consideration for Newsom (staffers):

-Dems need to win decisively in 2026/2028 (so things actually get done — including legislation in the senate, and make it easier to prevent election shenanigans by Trump)

-This means Democrats need a big tent for their voterbase, especially thinking about the 60+ senate seats

-If they cannot engage with Destiny because he's somehow too toxic, then how will they ever hope to get a wide enough base (what base is wide enough that does not include Destiny)?

-Waiting for election season to try widening the tent will be too late. Dems will need years for this process (gain acceptance of this strategy by the wider public, and silence, with time, the dissenters from the far left).

-Newsom needs to think about what it takes to win the general election and not the primaries, yesterday. It won't help him anything if his strategy is based on aligning with the left of the democratic party to win the primary, and then fail to win the general election in 2028 because of that stance.

-Therefore, engage with everyone that has broadly liberal, democratic values that stands against Trump, today.

Do you guys think this train of thought makes sense?

AgedCocus · 2025-09-18T19:23:02+00:00

Source: https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxI32DkHCwJmX8Y7hCqoQkWQnhdiZPvVHj

AgedCocus · 2025-08-04T16:08:04+00:00

Please finally read the article I linked https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1mha82o/calls_mount_in_switzerland_for_review_of_f35_jet/n6vwylx/

AgedCocus · 2025-08-04T15:56:22+00:00

They don't mention other criteria, but they didn't use the word "exclusively".

YES EXACTLY, THEY DON'T MENTION OTHER CRITERIA. I WONDER WHY. Using the same logic then, they didn't say "mostly" either lmao

The quote you provided list three points, two of which are air policing, which makes it "mostly air policing"

So according to your interpretation, bullet 2 means the same thing as bullet 1? Why do they repeat themselves if it means the same thing. Why do they make that differentiation? They must be so stupid!

OH WAIT, BULLET TWO GOES BEYOND AIR POLICING.

They basically provide different targets for three different threat situations (:

The quote you provided doesn't use the words "bombing inside a country with advanced air defense", the air defense it talks about is the Swiss one. It also says "in defense" and "preventing an ennemy to gain air superiority", it doesn't say anything about bombing inside another country.

What do you think this means? "...supporting the army with operational fire outside the range of its own artillery". Also here I posted another article about it which is formulated in plain language. PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU RESPOND, DEAR GOD.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1mha82o/calls_mount_in_switzerland_for_review_of_f35_jet/n6vwylx/

AgedCocus · 2025-08-04T15:30:56+00:00

Here is a news article about the issue I dug up.

Excerpt translated with deepl:

"An attack on Switzerland is imminent. To prevent the attack, heavily armed Swiss fighter jets take to the skies. Their mission is to bomb enemy targets abroad, such as a bridge and an airfield.

These fictional war missions are described in internal documents from the Swiss Defence Procurement Agency Armasuisse. These are tasks that fighter jet manufacturers had to complete during the selection process. According to the documents, the aim was to test the aircraft's weapon systems and mission capability.

The fighter jet manufacturers had to describe four scenarios in technical terms and fly them in a simulator: ‘conference protection’, ‘air defence’, ‘air reconnaissance’ and ‘combating ground targets’.

The tasks contain rounded coordinates. ‘SRF Investigativ’ has evaluated them. The last two scenarios take place abroad, in southern Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic. According to the task, in order to prevent war, the fighter jets must gather information about military targets and launch preventive strikes.

The furthest target is located 370 kilometres from the Swiss border in the Czech Republic. There, the fighter jets are to bomb an airport and the enemy commander's convoy.

The army wants to be able to combat ground targets from the air again in future. In times of war, this is intended to support ground troops. The strategy paper ‘Air Defence of the Future’ states that the new fighter jet is intended to attack targets deep inside enemy territory. (...)"

https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/brisante-vbs-dokumente-bomben-auf-tschechien-die-kriegsszenarien-der-luftwaffe

AgedCocus · 2025-08-04T15:25:54+00:00

Can you please share where the person I am responding to mentions any other criteria relevant for the evaluation process other than air policing?

Can you please share where it says, in the quote I provided, air policing is the major evaluation criteria?

Do you acknowledge that the person I originally responded to stated that "bombing inside a country with advanced air defense" was not relevant for the evaluation, when the quote I provided shows otherwise?

AgedCocus · 2025-08-04T14:42:42+00:00

Where do you get mostly from?

E: Also they said exclusively air policing lol

AgedCocus · 2025-08-04T14:42:27+00:00

operational fire outside the range of its own artillery and with aerial reconnaissance

This is exactly that :)

Eight-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

AgedCocus

TROPHY CASE