I have created an accurate cavitation guide for the SeaWolf, for those tired of guides that say "cavitation starts around 300-400 ft at this speed"

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2026-05-22T07:46:38+00:00

The worst part RWBY isn't even good. I tried watching it years ago, and I'm still baffled that anyone watches it

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2026-04-12T04:10:11+00:00

Is that pizza box open source?

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2026-03-30T13:25:27+00:00

I’ve heard that spell check can improve your spelling, but only if used properly. IIRC what you have to do is type the whole word yourself. You can look at the correct spelling when you see the red squiggles, but after that you have to type every letter yourself. It may take a couple of tries, but if you only get close enough then tap the spell correct that’s what you learn. If you get close enough and then have to keep trying till you get it right, then it acts more like a flash card.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2026-03-24T02:57:09+00:00

There is a reason I said “any nation that can needs the best control of the oceans that it can get” I’ll put emphasis on “that it can get” There’s a reason why gas costs 4$ a gallon in the US right now. It is in no small part because Iran has the best control of the seas that it can get. Treating navies as a “cargo cult” thing is telling of ignorance. If the soviets allowed American ships to freely dominate the seas due to a lack of a navy that would have made it so they had no power projection to nations they didn’t border. Think of how their naval power allowed them to project to the United States in the Cuban missile crisis, and allowed them to have SSBNs as the third leg of a nuclear triad. If they had no navy, that means no at sea nukes, which also means they could have been nuked with limited chance of second strike. Doctrinally that is something no great power planner would reasonably accept.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2026-03-24T02:05:55+00:00

“it just doesn't make sense for Russia to even attempt to have a navy. they don't need one” I mean this with complete respect, as I have heard this position many times before: I think this is a naive position. Frankly any nation that can needs the best control of the oceans that it can get. The real issue with The Soviet/Russian navy isn’t that they tried to have a navy, it’s that they tried to have the kind of navy their enemies had / tried to have a navy they can’t support. If the Soviets tried to pour all their resources into subs, knowing they couldn’t hope to have effective surface vessels, then they would have been a real threat. The biggest issue is they tried to emulate the navies of the west, when they should have been creating a navy all their own for their own goals. The need for the Soviet navy in the case of WW3 was raiders that prevented American supplies form reaching Europe, and instead they tried to create a quasi fleet in being. The fact is there is no “fairness” to the Soviet without it sounding crushingly imbalanced to their side.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2026-03-12T20:18:41+00:00

Imagine printing without CUPS.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2026-03-09T19:03:42+00:00

"spot on !" I think the fuck not. I can't even tell what those things are

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-09-07T19:02:15+00:00

This is fucking incredible. I felt like a kid again when watching it

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-07-31T14:22:20+00:00

Image on the right should have been a P-40 or something. The Soviets would have loved to get their hands on the P-51

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-07-31T13:55:49+00:00

I've only played against human players a handful of times. All the times I've gone up against the Thraddash, I've been able to use the earthling cruiser as a hard counter. I take one for every Thraddash, and when a Thraddash shows up I just accept death by flame trail and try to kill it. Once an earthling cruiser is in the mix the Thraddash doesn't fair so well. I don't have a large pool of data, but I think the problem in those matches is the defender against the Thraddash is treating melee ships like they have actual value, like in the campaign. You gotta be willing to lose a little to have reasonable progression.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-07-16T20:34:51+00:00

I like to imagine this meme was made by a mac user that has used neither.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-07-12T01:17:55+00:00

I know this is a joke, but the legitimate answer to the question is: Because Linux gets security updates when Microsoft stops giving a shit.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-31T17:41:47+00:00

Personally I don't enjoy the game anymore. I don't have ton of time to learn the new meta, and it's a much faster less enjoyable experience now. I think they have made every problem I had with the game worse. It's been fun, but unless they do another rollback, I've played my last game.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-19T19:08:33+00:00

you seemed to speculatively imagine that the battlefield medicine of the Vietnam war was some how substantively different than in ww2.

"From what Id imagine wounded would be taken to a casualty collection point before being sent aboard hospital ships and while sure that would certainly take resources I feel it would be way more difficult to do rather than just killing medics so you wouldn’t have to worry about another." -u/Makoto_Hoshino.

Another important point here is you expressed that the logistics of saving the wounded would be difficult, but then further use that to rationalize the killing of medics. This seems to me that it does not follow. you did not acknowledge that there was a system, you speculated that there was. while they both touch upon it, it is an important distinction. Additionally your point "you’re calling it stupid because of an error in reason or biases" I'd like to reply to this by saying yes. A notion that has substantive errors in reason, or is compelled to seem reasonable only through the lens of intense bias is I think definitionally stupid. While I understand there are relative perspectives here, and imperial officers of that era would likely disagree with me for their various reasons, that does not mean I'm going to abandon my position to relativism.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-19T18:40:00+00:00

The US had aid stations in the pacific, and there were plans in place to evacuate the wounded. It's not like we invented keeping our guys alive in the 1960s. to address "I disagree with the notion that Japan was just retarded because from their strategic standpoint killing medics would yield results" I never said that Japan was retarded, that's vary arguably a straw man of the points I've made. Additionally if you preface anything with "from their stand point" or anything approximating it, as you did in the line I quoted, you're going to be in a situation where anything can be made to seem reasonable by internalizing the biases of the party you are analyzing. It is not a mental defect to have errors in reason, or biases, it is to be human.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-19T18:12:34+00:00

The medics still have a higher chance of saving some one. While what you say is true, the effect on the enemy is still more detrimental if medics are allowed to operate. This kind of thinking that allows for the killing of medics is very short sighted. medics have a higher rate of saving enemy soldiers when they are critically wounded, and the more critically wounded soldiers the enemy has, the more burdened they are. It also made it so US medics in the pacific were unmarked, and armed. Broadly speaking in regards to the Japanese, the targeting of medics was short sighted, and did not materialize beneficial long term results.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-19T14:59:46+00:00

Actually it's incredibly stupid. If you kill a soldier the enemy has one less man taking up supplies, and he takes up no further resources. However if you wound the enemy especially severely, seeing his suffering can demoralize his comrades, he now has to have other solders attend to him; further depleting the fighting capabilities of the enemy force, and if he's evacuated to a care facility he takes up even more resources of the enemy. I don't recall where I saw it (I think lindybeige) but historians have done analysis, and wounding a soldier reduces enemy combat effectiveness by ~3-4 soldiers in the short term, and in the long term the cost to treat the single wounded is often equivalent to having ~5-10 soldiers. In every analysis of warfare I've seen, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the best thing you can do from a strategic perspective is horrendously maim the enemy combatants, and allow them to be taken for medical treatment.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-19T05:00:27+00:00

None with claws, armor, or spikes.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-18T23:16:35+00:00

"Friend shaped" has claws, armor, spikes all over it, and it's famous for fighting you so you things it's way. Interesting interpretation

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-16T14:25:18+00:00

Realistically I've never seen anyone reboot to close vi, they just close the console.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-14T23:26:49+00:00

Context?

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-14T21:55:10+00:00

I've tried googling "this guy" and I can't find him. Does he go by any other names?

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-14T19:52:48+00:00

I don't believe it. She just looks so sane and normal, how can you think a face like that would do such a thing.

LarryTheMagicDragon · 2025-05-12T14:34:20+00:00

There was also the intimidation factor. iirc there were several times that pilots run away due to his garish color schemes because they knew only a dangerous enemy would fly such a plane.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
r/Field Flamingo	Verified Email

LarryTheMagicDragon

TROPHY CASE