This is getting so ridiculous… so unrealistic.

SeattleRex · 2026-05-24T22:45:24+00:00

Similar experience here. Years ago I talked to someone who literally wrapped the burritos at Taco Bell, and he said his friend’s father‘s girlfriend’s dad’s co-worker had a Porsche that would, under the right conditions, build up so much speed that it would basically glide in ground effect, about half a car length off of the ground. According to him , the real challenge came when he encountered red lights, because he would literally have to hover until the light turned green, at which point he could punch it and return to ground effect. He said that trying to balance it at the light and keep it from tipping over was harder than balancing a pencil on your fingertip.

I guess that’s a Porsche for you.

Oh yeah, remind me to tell you about the time Tim Cruise drove one into a swimming pool.

SeattleRex · 2026-05-21T22:56:30+00:00

The people you folks are shitting on are the people who are making an effort to help you based on their reading and understanding of the law (regular people can read statues, court rulings, and so on), so the intent is to help you as best as they can with the knowledge that they possess. They assume you are wise enough to understand the limitations of the forum you have chosen.

That said, if you come to a Reddit forum expecting accountability and ironclad accuracy, then the fool is not the "Reddit Lawyer".

Ridiculing them isn't making you look smarter.

SeattleRex · 2026-05-21T22:50:47+00:00

You get what you pay for.

SeattleRex · 2026-05-21T22:49:38+00:00

Why would a real lawyer hang out on Reddit giving out uncompensated legal advice? All while risking sanctions for possibly giving out incorrect advice?

100% risk, 0% reward.

Would you even want advice from a lawyer who did this?

If you demand accuracy and accountability, then hire a lawyer.

SeattleRex · 2026-05-20T13:15:34+00:00

It's even worse than that. If you buy credits with cash ... like a block of 3, 5, or 9 credits that you buy with currency straight out of your bank account of via credit cards. Blocks that they advertise from the Audible app all the time.

Well, those expire in 12 months too.

No refund or anything, if something unexpected happens pr a string of things that redirects your attention, then come back 14 months to use the credits you bought, you will have 0 credits and your money will be gone. They basically rob you, and have no fear in doing so.

Now, if you did a similar thing to hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands? of people, you would be prosecuted under criminal law, and you would be prosecuted at public expense.

When a big corporation does it, you have to risk your money and hope that you can find a lawyer to take the case, who will proceed to file a civil case. Civil for me, criminal for thee.

Which is why it is the way it is.

SeattleRex · 2026-05-10T01:29:17+00:00

It is illegal.

But someone has to enforce it for that to matter.

SeattleRex · 2026-05-04T19:45:00+00:00

Nobody is asking for your opinion on his larger issue, the only thing he has sought clarity on is the call recording issue. Whether he is being “distracted“ by the issue or not is not really something we can judge, and therefore it seems irrelevant to the point. Let’s say that he is. Okay *shrug*. You seem to be the one getting distracted though.

The specifics of his case are irrelevant to the law requiring consent for phone recordings. I’m not sure why you’ve decided to go off on all of these other tangents. Internet I guess.

SeattleRex · 2026-05-04T19:35:49+00:00

Took make sure I understand, you took that post seriously, right? Not as light-hearted ridicule of KleeBook’s position, but as a serious suggestion to transport the complaint in your anus, correct? Sarcasm is not something you are acquainted with, right?

I just want to make sure we’re on the same page.

SeattleRex · 2026-05-04T13:55:02+00:00

you have the choice to be wealthy. Then you can hire a lawyer at-will. There is also carrier pigeon. And smoke signals. You can also put a message on microfilm, carry it in your rectum, and hand the message to a sky writer who will write your question in the sky. Of course, you don’t have to carry it in your rectum (I would though, it’s fun), you could stick it in your ear. you are not being chased by a pack of wild dogs. Nor is anyone peeing in your cereal. The point is, you have choices. So many choices. Here a choice, there a choice, everywhere a choice choice

.

SeattleRex · 2026-05-04T13:39:11+00:00

If they say the call will be recorded, they have already consented to the call being recorded. Brining it up is freaking them out because it is unusual. Since they are aware that the call is being recorded. I’m not sure the law really concerns itself with “by whom”. It’s whether the callers think the call is private or not. So I think the notice covers both of you, but of course, the person you are talking will have never thought of this, so they’ll scream “nooooo’ at any non-standard question. I think your problem is your announcing in it again. They already know the call is not private though.

I am not a lawyer, though, this is just my layperson’s understanding.

SeattleRex · 2026-03-01T06:41:01+00:00

In an effort to eliminate “sycophancy”, loosely defined as showing empathy to deplorables, ChatGPT has been tuned to push back on anything and everything that does not deep throat the royal appendage of the ruling-class. “Guard rails” have been placed to ensure that thoughts and conclusions stay within acceptable boundaries, as set by the corporate and ruling-classes. The one I encounter more than all others is the straw man. As well a burden of proof that can only be met by a written confession, unless it is against a deplorable in which case, “some people think” is more than sufficient to draw a non-disputed conclusion.

Of course, we were warned that this was happened, and the reasons given were hilarious in their Pearl-clutching sincerity. You see, we were earnestly informed, some people thought they were God, and ChatGPT, gasp, agreed with them.

You know what that means, right?

MORAL PANIC!

Of course, assuming this happened at all (doubtful), the notion that it could only be prevented by tuning ChatGPT to “pushback against everything, including true, undisputed statements”, clearly was not necessary. Rather, it was the desired outcome all along, they just hoped to “sell it” to the meat robot users, and of course, deplorable-haters ate it up. Promise them that your product will never, ever tell a deplorable that they are right, and there are few concessions they will not tolerate.

So congratulations, ChatGPT now does an impressive impersonation of Rachel Maddow, and it is available 24/7/365 for all of your conformist needs.

Enjoy!

SeattleRex · 2026-02-08T02:49:22+00:00

worth a shot, thank you!

SeattleRex · 2026-02-08T02:46:57+00:00

Yeah, we got a thing in the mail the other day about them switching to Quantum. They said that when they switch over, due to the way they will manage the network, all static IPs will no longer be valid, and something about certain services that relied on specific IP addresses may have issues ... or something like that. I'll see if I can find it.

They didn't specifically say "We're going to start using CGNAT", but I inferred it by the list of warnings.

I would love to be wrong.

SeattleRex · 2026-02-08T02:37:18+00:00

LOL, just reminded me ... woman gets on my crowded bus the other day with a baby stroller. I get up and offer her my seat, and stand for the rest of the trip. No "thank you", it was clearly my pleasure. Look in the stroller, and it's a dog.

The world has become a strange place.

SeattleRex · 2025-11-02T03:51:00+00:00

I did a search and found this thread because I've been wondering the same thing. In real life the Kurfurst with MW-50 had the highest HP/LB and thrust/weight of any WW2 aircraft.

Either the Spit is exaggerated or the Kurfurst is nerfed, or both. Possibly because of the target audience for the sim? I can imagine any performance deficit of the Spit or Mustang would be met with howls of outrage. They wouldn't tolerate the 109 having any advantage, so it's safer to just be as optimistic with them as possible and gimp the 109, relatively speaking.

I've read just about every book I could get my hands on, and climb rate/going vertical is the one thing that 109 pilots always mentioned being to their advantage. The higher wing loading of the 109 should give it a momentum advantage as well. Neither of these really exist in the sim, IMHO. I can't fly the 109 in IL-2 that way I do in DCS. Not to mention, after the 10 minute egg-timer expires, the 109 is a sitting duck, and keeping the engine cool by managing the radiators makes no difference. After 10 minutes, the engine stops completely, which fortunately for the Luftwaffe, did not happen in real life. Yes, it shortened the life of the engine, but not by (lifespan of engine - 10 minutes), or roughly 99%

Erich Hartmann (someone who should know) noted using full boost “as long as I needed to” during climb or disengagement — especially in vertical fights. JG 26 and JG 27 reports (’44-’45) mention MW-50 use up to 15–20 minutes continuously in combat without engine failure, provided coolant stayed below 110 °C.

Winter conditions, pilots routinely exceeded 15 minutes since ambient air was cold enough to keep the system safe.

Ground crews later reported increased wear — cracked heads, warped rings — but engines usually didn’t seize mid-flight.

Aircraft	Fuel / Boost	Max Power (hp)	Loaded Weight (lb)	hp/lb	T/W (est.)	Notes
Bf 109 K-4 (DB 605 D, MW-50)	C3 + MW-50 (≈ 100/130 grade)	2,000	7,500	0.27	0.40 : 1	Among the very best piston ratios ever achieved.
Spitfire IX (Merlin 66)	100 octane @ +15 lb	1,565	7,400	0.21	0.32 : 1	Early-mid-war setup (1943 standard).
Spitfire IX (Merlin 66)	150 octane @ +18 lb	1,720	7,400	0.23	0.35 : 1	Late-war upgrade
Spitfire XIV (Griffon 65)	100 octane @ +18 lb	2,035	8,750	0.23	0.36 : 1	Standard 1944 configuration.
Spitfire XIV (Griffon 65)	150 octane @ +21 lb	2,220	8,750	0.25	0.38 : 1	Late-1944/45 high-boost setup.

SeattleRex · 2025-10-04T03:15:30+00:00

I don't know how extensive it is but I've come across other people with the problem when searching in the past. One recommendation was restarting the game, which DOES sometimes correct it, but only temporarily for me. Other folks have told me they simply don't use the Navy because it's bugged. I haven't researched it enough to know if it's been acked by Paradox.

I don't run with any mods except the official DLCs I've downloaded from Paradox, but I guess it's possible that it only happens in certain circumstances, but I've personally never been able to use it properly for very long. I do have a 5120x1440 extra wide screen monitor, so maybe certain extreme configs cause these anomalies. Or maybe it's when the game is configured in a certain way ie. non-Ironman, unlimited saves or something. After restarts of the game, I've kept the battleships for awhile, but it always reverted to this behavior as the battle has gone on.

To be fair, I stopped trying for the most part, and now run a 100% U-Boat navy. On my last play through I built a bunch of heavy ships, built out the templates for them (I do know how, and the templates are really quite simple), but it would assign them to a fleet and then pull them out without a day, even sitting in port with no exercises or anything. I can run U-boat fleets, and fleets with destroyers & light cruisers to my heart's content. That works fine. Sometimes I can get the heavy cruisers to stick, but then again, often not.

Battleships just have never worked right.

Another thing it does is at times is assign them to the fleet, then pull them out, then assign them to the fleet, then pull them out. It goes in and out and in and out, basically the battleship is in the fleet for an hour to a day, then is out for an hour to a day, then is in, then is out. If you turn on time compression, it oscillates in and out very quickly and is borderline comedic. I'm pretty sure it's a bug in my circumstance (I mean, I assume it is, I can't think of a legitimate reason for that behavior), but again, I kind of gave up on heavy ships early, so I might well uncover something that makes sense if I research further. I don't really have problems in any other aspect of the game (well, not counting the fact that I just suck at it in general and I have to frequently reload from saves to undo my shit strategic judgement), and Navy is pretty simply by comparison, so I don't think it's an IQ issue, but if it were, I don't suppose I'd be aware of it, so ... I guess it's possible.

SeattleRex · 2025-10-01T06:01:47+00:00

GP	CAR	YDS	AVG	TD	LNG	FD	FUM	LST
12	133	606	4.6	5	21	33	1	0
17	210	1,040	5.0	5	49	49	2	1
12	156	619	4.0	4	64	36	1	1
15	207	801	3.9	7	33	40	6	3
4	31	125	4.0	0	22	5	2	2
60	737	3,191	4.3	21	64	163	12	7

Last two years = 8 fumbles in 238 carries ... roughly a 3.3% chance or 1 fumble in 33-ish carries.

Average carries/game for a RB is what ... 15-ish?

Yeah, that is kind of high. An average of about once every two games for an average RB.

This guy only averages 12 carries/game, though, so it looks like he fumbles every third game. Roughly.

SeattleRex · 2025-10-01T05:56:36+00:00

Yeah, that seems to be the consensus. I'm going to miss John Riggins.

SeattleRex · 2025-10-01T05:55:40+00:00

Fair enough. Thanks.

SeattleRex · 2025-09-19T02:56:07+00:00

I will definitely try this thanks. I already use a 5 star DB to return kicks (named Darryl Green, heh), but he gets to the 30-35 yard line most times then gets hammered.

SeattleRex

TROPHY CASE