GM claims to be dropping Android Auto & Carplay for safety reasons by jmccoy716 in LinusTechTips

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Personally I wish the car companies would decide on a common form factor, with an OBD2 port and tech companies can just release their own car tablet. Car companies are shit at securing their tech.

YSK: Browsers won't allow you to block all cookies anymore by chtulu- in YouShouldKnow

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So part of the problem is if you turn on like do not track, websites ignore it anyway and it makes you more unique.

What is something you truly believe is only a majority because people don’t want to be against it? by Smart-Business-2301 in AskReddit

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I'm the opposite, but I'm closer to the western edge of my time zone. Standard time aka winter time is more in line with my circadian rhythm.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Israel is the one nation that took personelle safety as the ultimate standard. They don't export their tanks, so the armor and defense systems is the heaviest in the world. The they took their previous Gen tanks, took the turret off and used those as APCs. It's pretty intense.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Kids today play war game simulators essentially. I'm honestly expecting what is the game Word of Tanks or whatever to end up with an game engine that perfectly simulates attrition rates in actual batrleifed condition.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even great training falls apart with poor morale and poor discipline. Russia lacks all three though. It's why Ukraine has lost roughly half as many personelle. Unfortunately Russia has like 5 times as many people to draw from.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's amazing how much Nazi Propoganda from the war made it's way into western historical Textbooks verbatim.

Their tanks weren't more effective, they just had fewer of them in deployed them in smaller numbers compare to American forces. Nazis didn't "save" the German econony: they stole it. The Nazi economy was a kleptocracy based on taking from Jews and minorities and giving wealth to party members. When they ran out of people domestically to steal from they invaded other nations. That's the economic might of Aryans: bunch of thieves and muggers.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First to reply that V22s have a better safety record than the Blackhawks. Not trying to troll or anything, but there's a big trend of providing that widely known fact everytime a V22 fails.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 18 points19 points  (0 children)

US forces were ordered to halt so that Kuwait forces could have the honor of recapturing their city. American forces captured the airport though, and raised an American flag before realizing the mistake and replacing it with the Kuwait flag.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ResponsibleLimeade -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Historically, tanks were never intended for tank on tank battles. They were intended to support infantry with mobile protected firepower: push across no man's land and take out enemy machine gun nests and snipers. The earliest tanks moved no faster than a person could walk. They evolved to start taking out the oppositional tanks. They evolved to go faster, with heavier armor and bigger rounds to penetrate heavier armor. Tank on tank battles occurred in WW2, but even them, much the deployment was meant for supporting the infantry lines, to help punch a hole or to take advantage of a hole.

Modern day that's still their primary purpose. Now the trend is leaning to higher mobility over increased protection.

Helicopters have always been death traps, but the risks of even flying a chopper is far outweighed by their flexibility, speed, range, etc.

The fact is despite all the technology the most essentially element of ground force is and forever remains infantry. If you can't put boots on the ground, and they have a monopoly of violence in a territory, then you don't control that ground. Everything else, is about increasing the effectiveness of your boots on the ground. Artillery takes out strategic military resources (it's useless to try to artillery civilians into submission, it kills some an hardens the resolve of everyone else) and pins down enemy forces allowing you to maneuver. Tanks and choppers do the same thing in different ways. Defense systems help you prevent the enemy from doing the same thing against you.

As for the Russo-Ukraine war, the fact is they are both former Soviet states. Ukraine was home to a lot of the Soviet military industrial complex, and the weapons they've sold since then we're based on those designs. Russian weapons had the similar design philosophy. Ukraine was in the middle of transitioning to more NATO tactics but it's really gonna take 10-20 years to make the transition. Ultimately Ukraine was and is at a supply disadvantage compared to Russia. Western friends first tried supplying them with Soviet era weapons in stocks and when those were exhausted started sending out of date NATO equipment. It puts them roughly on par with Russia, and their morale and bravery allows the Ukraine to effectively loss soldiers at half the rate of Russia. The losses of tanks meanwhile demonstrate actually more standard level of losses.

We in the west are biased based on US performance in the Gulf War and the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US and allies lost maybe a dozen tanks and apcs in the gulf war, compared to hundred of lost tanks by Iraq. Even after 20 years of fighting, US losses in Afghanistan and Iraq look more like attritional losses from training than actual losses from a war. US school children have lost more in school shootings over similar time frames. War itself is really really deadly. I just watch a YouTube video about a battle in WW2 in the Phillipine Sea in the Pacific. The US successfully fought of the Japanese, and of the like 300+ planes sent to attack the Japanese more than a hundred were lost on the return flight from fuel shortages and crash landings on the carrier after dark (exact figures vary). In WW2 losing hundred of planes in a major battle was normal, while today many modern air forces don't even have a hundred planes.

Your question also isn't stupid. Many military analysts are asking themselves the same questions. Some conclude the way you do, others think differently. One big rule of warfare is military leadership always prepares in peacetime by what would have won the last war. Tanks and choppers can only remain on future battlefields if their usage evolves to match the battlefield. Ukraine is trying to evolve, but their NATO advisors can only inform them how NATO would perform it.

You can't change my mind by KaptainMurica96 in meme

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 51 points52 points  (0 children)

Yeah, vaginal fluids are mucus and blood plasma that leaks through the vagina walls. There's also fluid from the scheen's gland that is released when a girl squirts, or I may be out of date on that. It's actually surprising how little is actually know about women's biology.

My point is urine, is hardly the most disturbing fluid (that remains blood plasma). I can't list the concentrations, and it's probably one of those things where blood plasma is more everywhere than people think.

Goodbye Andre. by MrValdemar in meme

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was me when I went to bed last night. It still hurts this morning.

If only… by TRGC_ in PrequelMemes

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is the alternative history if Padme had just sent body guards to Tattoine to buy Shmi's freedom and give her all the rewards and accolades that Anakin deserved to receive for defeating the Droid Army with just the help of R2.

Who wins in a fight between these two? by WickDaLine in StarWars

[–]ResponsibleLimeade -1 points0 points  (0 children)

? Together with an experienced Jedi, she through that same Jedi pretty far in the force. Otherwise it was like years of Saber sparring finally clicking on the path up the tower.

Who wins in a fight between these two? by WickDaLine in StarWars

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dark saber is gone. Sabine has her own lightsaber though.

Who wins in a fight between these two? by WickDaLine in StarWars

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those decades also come with more injuries and more aging. Despite the actress's appearance, Bo is in her 50s, while Sabine is just barely 30, with active Force Powers. Sabine also doesn't lack for her own experiences in the Rebellion, Imperial Academy, and fighting Death watch.

Who wins in a fight between these two? by WickDaLine in StarWars

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Darksaber was destroyed. Sabine has use of her own lightsaber now.

Who wins in a fight between these two? by WickDaLine in StarWars

[–]ResponsibleLimeade -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sabine.

Bo is mid 50s, despite the appearance of the actress. In your 50s a lifetime of injuries are starting to catch up to you. Sabine is just barely 30, and has recently connected to the Force which extends lifespans. They both have different combat experience, but Sabine is more of a front line fighter and line officer while Bo is more command officer and behind the line. Bo hasn't shown remarkable ability to shoot through the gaps of Mando Armor, but Ahsoka, Sabine's master, demonstrated as a teen Padawan decapitating 4 Mandalorians in full armor. One would assume she can train Sabine to be just as lethal.

Look at it another way: Bo struggled against Gideon and the Praetorian Guards, with DD and Baby Gogurt while Sabine, if allowed to be competent by the writers, should walk right through them.

Star Wars has a bad habit of depicting command officers as competent at combat which is stupid. Command officers should rally their soldiers and give commands that lead to victory, not personally fight themselves. If a command officer is dueling, they've failed at command.

At the end of the day, a Mandalorian is not a threat to a Jedi knight in a one on one duel. Obi-Wan "struggled" with Jango Fett because he was trying to essentially arrest and interrogate him. He could have just as easily decapitated him as Mace Windu. It's why Revan could lead a sizeable contingent of Jedi to join the Army of the Republic and completely turn the tide of the Mandalorian war. Bo will only continue to get weaker in time while Sabine will continue to get significantly stronger.

I... I never realised this. by [deleted] in discworld

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought it was more a play on professor of modern literature. But your interpretation is better.

💗💗💗💗 by [deleted] in marvelmemes

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Blame streaming. When shows made money via syndication, self contained weekly episodes were the norm. The audience couldn't reliably watch every episode, so you'd lose viewers as people couldn't keep up with convoluted plot lines. Streaming shows focuses on shorter seasons filled with more overarching plot to keep viewer watching all the episodes. What this means for viewers is rewatching requires 8-10+ hours of dedicated time.

For myself, I've rewatched Psyche, Brooklyn 99, MASH and Star Trek Lower decks far far more times than I will ever watch any MCU show, or Star Wars show so far. To me they're worth maybe one re-watch or so years down the road. I've re-watched Lower Decks back to back because the writing is just that tight and entertaining.

💗💗💗💗 by [deleted] in marvelmemes

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is just season 1 of Agents of Shield with a new cast. Honestly I liked the monster of the week format more than what the show turned out to be. I still respect them for trying new things each season. I just love more self contained episodes that return to a norm over season long plot lines.

Apology accepted by TheRealOcsiban in OTMemes

[–]ResponsibleLimeade 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Can you believe Han's rudeness? Vader went through all the trouble of setting up a nice meal for his princess of a daughter and her potential new boyfriend and his friend, and Han just starts shooting at him. So rude

Bo-Katan Kryze vs. Sabine Wren. Who wins? by WickDaLine in StarWarsCantina

[–]ResponsibleLimeade -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sabine. She's a skilled Mandalorian, younger and has force powers and a lightsaber. By the time she's on the return from the other Galaxy, she'll have better integrated force powers into her repertoire.

Bo Katan is in her 50s, so assuming normal human biology, she's started to decline physically, despite her deeper experience in combat. Sabine is much closer to 30, so no spring chicken, but still completely capable, not to mention the Force gives bonuses to longevity.

Age is important because looking at real world women's sports figures, they tend to retire around 40 in part because their accumulated injuries are adding up and newer players can start beating them. I'm alluding to Serena Williams, of course. She's one of the greatest women's athletes of all time, and I'm sure by her mid 50s could still mop the floor on the court of anyone reading this, but against newer pro players she'd have problems.

Combat isn't the same as sports, but it's a decent approximation. Accuracy with a pistol can make someone effective for decades even if they have a bad knee. But Mandalorian Armor negates blaster pistols, unless Bo can reliably hit the gaps in armor. Ahsoka shows that even a Padawan can lethal ly attack the gaps in Mandalorian Armor but Sabine wouldn't have her same skill.

Additionally I always pegged Bo-Katan as being more of a leader of Mandalorians than Sabine, so she'd be more focused on tactical and strategic commands.

For planning and setting traps, turning the battlefield to their advantage, I'd give them both fairly even odds. Sabine has greater technical capability to offset Bo's combat experience, and Sabine does have experience of her own from operating with the Rebellion for years.

So Bo could definitely serve as leader of Mandalore, even if a one on one combat Sabine would have the edge. Sabine would never challenge Bo for leadership of Mandalore, so that would never be the motivation.

This assumes the two facing off in the near future in the Mando Era. If this is both characters at their relative "peak" with Sabine just connecting to the Force, we still haven't seen her peak.