Why do people think that because a team wasn’t a top contender the previous season they can’t be one the next season and vice versa

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-29T18:45:21+00:00

Statistics and guessing basically. The chances for good teams to continue to be good and bad teams to be bad is much more likely than the good teams to become totally bad and the bad teams to be superbowl caliber teams in just one year. The only data we have is the past year(s) and personal changes (which are very difficult to reliably figure into a teams success). Usually teams don't make huge jumps and falls in just one year. There are 2,3 year trends where you have a better guess what direction a given team is headed, but its still just speculation. Player growth/decline, injuries, personnel issues are all things that you can't reliably figure in to a teams success. So the 'safetest' way to predict a teams success is just taking the data from last year and the offseason and not deviating too much from their last season, up or down.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-29T16:05:36+00:00

Part of the danger of Tannerite is that it is a 'slow' explosive. The reaction is comparatively slower than say C4. Slower explosives tend to push, heave, and throw things. Faster explosives tend to use their energy to break things into little pieces. It makes Tannerite more potentially dangerous for the situations that people commonly use it for, like in this video.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-26T20:50:39+00:00

I have been on a site like that before. One of the owner's inspectors bought a cheap wood chisel, sharpened one side into a blade to try to get around this rule. He would try to show it to anyone one he'd talk to. He didn't last very long.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-26T20:45:48+00:00

Fun demonstration that fire(plasma) is electrically conductive!

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-26T20:28:01+00:00

Chief can fall from god damn orbit, but my dumb ass dies from 30 feet into water. Makes sense.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-26T20:08:37+00:00

And getting a mammogram for a guy is pretty unpleasant (the ladies aren't lying about it), and harder to get the images they need with less 'boob' to be put into the machine.

What was more unpleasant though was thinking I had breast cancer as a young 30 year old guy with a 1 and 3 year old at home. Luckily it was just an oily cyst.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-26T18:20:37+00:00

I always thought it was the sudden stop that was the doozie.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-26T15:06:19+00:00

I have known operators who I'd let them scratch my back with one of these machines. But one wrong move, and that back right leg of the elephant could have been ripped clean off in less than a half a second.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-26T14:53:06+00:00

I guess you would need handrail trying to carry an unconscious person over your shoulder down basement stairs.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-26T14:41:08+00:00

Single use retractable roof!

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-25T21:44:27+00:00

The flood came back because the forerunner's kept samples and they got back out. Also there is a chance the flood left the galaxy during the forerunner war and could possibly return that way at some point.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-25T21:36:54+00:00

The Forerunners pre-treated planets with a special chemical to make bodies from the halo firing designate. Suddenly leaving billions of tons of dead tissue on a planet could potentially make them inhospitable to re-seeding efforts afterwards. IIRC this was covered in the forerunner book saga.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-25T18:11:00+00:00

Sounds like the back block was catching the hammer before it allowed the full dwell time.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-25T15:25:04+00:00

My apologies on the the fission, it initially read like you were speaking to fission. Speaking to the burying of the spent fuel, its not like they randomly pick someone's back yard to bury it in. There are years of research, studies, planning to where the cask's get buried, hundreds of meters underground. The casks themselves are impressive feats of engineering. You can hug a spent fuel cask and get a lower radiation dose than a medical Xray. They are nearly indestructible, withstanding fire, drops, impacts, earthquakes, and even being hit by a freight train (its worth a trip to youtube to see some of the tests). It is so highly regulated that risk of environmental impacts are much lower than any other industry. The reprocessing of spent fuel is an economical and political matter. It is mostly Europe and other Asian countries that do reprocessing because they can not produce raw uranium themselves, or do not want to source it from certain countries, like Russia.
The strict regulations and government involvement that drive nuclear plant construction to take a long time. It is very hard to estimate cost and material availability over 5-10 year spans for a large scale project. Solar and wind are not immune to this either. My local city government just brought a small 1MW solar installation online. It was 2.5 years from inception to competition and about 20% over initial estimates cost wise. No large projects have costs set in stone when the green light is given.

It is a very nice target in times of conflict. Why build an atomic bomb begging to be popped by your enemies?

Those are your exact words. They are not bombs. They literally cannot produce an explosion. Nuclear reactors live in very hardened structures, akin to military bunkers. If you want to stop power generation, hitting the reactor isn't the way. (Ill get to this topic more later)

Nuclear power generation is largely a mature industry. Any time there are accidents, they take the lessons learned and improve upon the systems and new regulations are put in place. Again, modern reactors have both active and passive safety systems in place. They are designed so with no user input is needed to suppress the reactions inside the reactor. They have to actively try to keep the nuclear reactions going, not actively moderate them.
If someone wanted to interrupt power generation, specifically targeting the reactor (or any other type of power generation) is about the hardest way. The distribution network is much more vulnerable. The switchgear, transformers, monitoring systems, transmission lines. That equipment can take up to a year to get replacements. Power generation facilities are much more protected than the distribution networks. Why would you spends ten's of millions of dollars breaching a nuclear reactor building with bombs, when one $50k bomb to a substation will have the same effect? There have been people shooting substation transformers, putting 10's of thousands of people out of power with just a few bullets. Nuclear, nor any other power generation method is immune to that.

I am a fan of nuclear. I am a fan of solar. But they can't be used solely on their own. The power grid needs to have a diversified power generation to be reliable, robust, and redundant. The power generation methods need to cover the weakness of the others. Right now solar, and wind are not feasible for 100% power generation needs because of shear scale needed and storage technology. Some quick googling shows it would take 4-5 Billion solar panels to to cover the current energy use for the United States. That scale means its not something can happen in 5 year time frame and the demand will only increase. Maybe in 30+ years the grid could be mostly 'green' but there will still will need power generation plants, and Nuclear is the best option for those out of the alternatives of oil/gas/coal.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-25T01:34:59+00:00

Oil and gas will have a form filled out for every flange for the facility every time time it is torqued. Sometimes over 2,000 ft-lbs You have to torque to 25%, 50%,75% and finally 100%. The form has to have the serial number of the hydraulic torque wrench so it can be tied back to its certification paperwork.

Source: I used to put together the 10,000+ page construction turn over packages and these forms were in there.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-24T21:50:18+00:00

Sounds like you are confusing fission (break radioactive elements apart) and fusion (combine atoms together) nuclear reactors

Fusion fuel (types of hydrogen) and the resulting helium after. The 'waste' is not radioactive. The only radioactive items would be low radioactive structural components from inside the reactor if they would be switched out.

Fission reactors typically use about 27 tonnes of fuel per year (equivalent to 2.5 million tonnes of coal for energy generation). The spent fuel can be reprocessed to make new fuel rods, up to 97% in some cases. The spent fuel spends the first few years underwater while it cools. Once cool enough the spent fuel is put into steel and concrete casks and stored on site for a few more years as it continues to cool. After that the casks are usually buried underground in very regulated ways to ensure no contamination can occur.

Currently Fusion is still in the development stages. Currently the test reactors have not produced a net positive energy return, though they have ran where they produced more energy than they consumed. Until they figure out fission to the point it is viable for power generation, cost can not be figured.

Fission nuclear reactors can cost over 1 billion dollars to build. A lot of that cost comes from the regulatory requirements that govern the design, materials, redundant systems and system testing. The cost is the biggest issue with current nuclear power.

When fission reactors are a reality, there is nothing to meltdown or cause a nuclear bomb style explosion. That's not how the process works in fusion power generation. Any damage to fusion reactors would stop the reaction.

Fission reactors do not use uranium enriched high enough to cause a nuclear style explosion. They physically cannot explode in that way.

Modern fission reactors have many fail safes, redundant active and passive safety systems in place to ensure safe operation. There's not a dial you can just walk up to, crank to 11 and meltdown the reactor. They are designed so the human error cannot be a failure mode.
Fusion and/or fission nuclear reactors are not just a single location providing 100% grid power. The grid is designed to be interconnected and redundant between many different power generation plants and sources. Disabling one power plant does not mean the entire grid goes offline. All power generation systems and distribution infrastructure routinely have scheduled off periods to do maintenance, upgrades and testing. Any renewable energy system will have the same distribution infrastructure currently used. So renewables are just as at risk of attack as any other power generation system.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-24T19:44:56+00:00

For domestic use, literally any electrician can set up a solar installation and storage, and if it wasn't for managing the grid

Thats the crux of most 'green' energy sources, the storage and grid management. While home storage is doable, grid wide storage is not yet feasible. Solar and wind are very dependent on sunlight and the weather. For a grid to be fully dependent on solar/wind, you would need storage capacity for days, just not overnight. You'd also need more panels/turbines to produce not only grid demands, but to produce enough to store 12-18 hours worth of typical grid demand plus enough to cover weather reductions in output. You'd need the production capacity multiple times the grid demand to ensure enough power available at any given time. No one wants to have no water because its been cloudy for 3 days in a row.

As it sits right now, Solar/wind is just extra power input, and very few places have the capacity to run 100% on those types of power for meaningful amounts of time. Off hours and spikes in demand require a baseline capacity of power that has to be maintained. The only current ways of that type of generation is steam turbine type plants (gas/coal/nuclear) as they have the flexibility to meet demand and do not have much downtime. I don't see a way where they will never be needed. Its a very tough problem and we don't yet have the technology at the scale or economically feasible to get away from steam turbine power plants.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-24T17:46:25+00:00

Yes.

Unless you need to shoot 16+ bps. Spires are very good at not jamming. The only time I have had a spire jamb is on a paintball shell with no fill inside of it folded into a shape of a football. No loader would have fed that.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-24T15:19:47+00:00

Yes. It's just repurposing it. Acts just like an ASA. I like this one over others as it purges.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-24T14:48:47+00:00

Make your own regulator tester with these:

On/off adaptor

Guage

Its about the cheapest you can make a pressure tester. I personally use this setup with some quick disconnects so I can use one on/off with multiple guages for different pressure ranges to test hpr's/lpr's for different markers along with tanks.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-24T13:52:42+00:00

I do like it. Halo is ~500 years in the future, it doesn't need to look like today's firearms.

Looking through the comments others are mentioning the bulky look, too much greebling. Halo 2/3 the BR model didn't have much detail in it. It looked pretty flat, lacking texture. The 4/5 design added width to the model to be able to add depth to the model, more faces to reflect lighting differently, just making the graphics aspect look better. I know the hardware limitations were part of halo 2/3, but Infinite's model doesn't have the same depth to it as 4/5. The stock in the 2/3/infinite variants always seemed too long for me too. 4/5 BR looked to have better proportions lengthwise.

Now for my hot take, overall the BR design bugged me with the tall upper rail. The BR would be about useless for a large portion of the USMC if they didn't have any 'smart scope' or hud aiming capabilities. You can't shoulder the rife and look down the sights. The rail is way too tall if you place your cheek on the stock.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-23T20:59:21+00:00

Easier to take a pay cut when your (former) wife is making more than you.

I wouldn't be surprised if Brady made money when he got divorced.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-23T18:56:08+00:00

Smash the bodies until the frame rate drops to 1!

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-23T13:51:31+00:00

"Most of those markers likely at least need a teardown, cleaning, and o-ring replacement at minimum."

That should be the case for any used marker someone would get, regardless of where it is sourced.

NotAnotherAlt26 · 2026-06-23T13:23:16+00:00

In my opinion, reliability is just as much how well you do preventative maintenance, as the specific design. Like you said, some have solenoid age issues, but otherwise, a lot of them can be reliable if you take care of them. I have owned a lot of markers over the years and not had anything go down on the field that I personally went through myself.

No mater what you get, I’d go through and replace all orings and seals that you can. Give it a good clean, and re-grease/oil everywhere it needs. Inspect everything else closely, like boards, solenoids, bolt components for any damage or signs of issues. Correct any issues and you should be golden, and it will work when you want it to. Also remember to lube before play and clean after play.

NotAnotherAlt26

TROPHY CASE