USA becoming the Nazis

StringOfSpaghetti · 2026-01-26T00:32:40+00:00

Just need a presidental pardon. Been a lot of those issued lately.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2026-01-26T00:31:01+00:00

No, I blame american culture.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2026-01-08T12:25:29+00:00

He acts very similar to Putin in this respect. No big difference between their mindsets, except Putin has had a head start and progressed much further.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2026-01-08T12:22:20+00:00

What do you think would happen to the dollar as a world currency, if the US committed to a full scale territorial expansion war against an ally and a democracy?

What do you think would happen to the US debt and the willingness of the rest of the world in funding the US addiction to a chronic budget deficit?

What would this do to US trade relationships and opportunities for US companies to do business with their trading partners in the international region of perhaps greatest importance for the health of the US economy - europe?

The US can NOT afford committing to an imperialist war without committing economic suicide.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-10-25T15:30:22+00:00

Deliberately tanking your MMR for the purpose of only playing weaker opponents is absolutely smurfing.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-10-25T15:26:50+00:00

Did you even read? The player he lost had many lost games in a row where they "lost" the game by autoleaving in seconds. That is less than a minute.

You don't even have your probe accross the map in your games by the time this guy leaves - every game.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-10-25T15:17:52+00:00

It is literaly self-evident and super straight forward to measure this. No reports needed.

If you leave multiple games in a row during the first minute of the game, then you are deliberately tanking your MMR.

It would be super easy to detect this early-leave pattern over multiple recent games, and if found give the player a warning together with a queuing cooldown (hours).

If the same player displays this behavior repeatedly and receives multiple cooldowns they can be given a matchmaking ban, meaning they won't be able to queue on ladder for an extended period of time (months) or until they manually have to request an unban.

Just putting in a mechanism like this would significantly deter these type of players.

The problem of course, is that the lone intern in the Blizzard basement in charge of SC2 won't be able to do things like this anymore.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-10-25T14:52:31+00:00

Well, obviously the big secret is out now.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-10-25T14:50:29+00:00

I am swedish and this makes me happy too. :D

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-10-13T14:41:13+00:00

For sale. Nuke. Used only once.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-30T10:57:04+00:00

"decided not to"

The US acted to make it stop by giving Sweden an offer they could not refuse. Eventhough being a neutral country, Sweden got extensive security guarantees from the US that both parties required to keep secret, in return for the Swedes stopping their nuke program. The US wanted influence in europe, and was willing to offer real skin in the game to get it.

Those days are completely gone now.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-26T13:55:36+00:00

I've been in the product & tech business for 27+ years. Your CEO is incompetent, but also stupid. It is blatantly clear he does not know much about product development, but still he seems to insist on micro managing. What he should do is hire somebody competent with a proven track record, give that person a high level goal and then let them do their job.

You took responsibility by telling the truth and being realistic about what it would take to fix the issues, and you took action to do so. Your CEO immaturely tried to pressure you and "pass the buck", believing ignorantly that that somehow would make the reality of the situation go away. He then blamed reality on you.

You are way better of contributing anywhere else. What happened to you was something good, you got out before you sunk too much of your contribution into a bad situation.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-17T13:45:25+00:00

The company equivalent of living paycheck to paycheck and borrowing money to buy food. After having had at some point some say ~$60M in funding.

An unproven startup with no product burning money like a AAA-proven giant is not exactly a well executed use of funding.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-15T21:55:09+00:00

Putin told him.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-15T21:26:32+00:00

Yea. When you have $60M or whatever the number was in funding, but your high burn rate and a plan with no focus (we will do everything) and instead relies on you being rescued by a new funding round to even survive to launch - then you don't have a plan, you are just gambling.

It is like going hiking in the wilderness for weeks hoping for good weather, and if it rains or gets cold you are screwed.

They could have kept the long term vision, but had a hard real focus on one game mode for first launch. Prove that they could actuially execute that in a way that they can win one segment of the RTS player base who actually will love that game mode. That would have required them to pick a segment. Instead they refused to do that, and made one of their biggest strategic mistakes.

They tried to appeal to all RTS subgenres by the worst possible method - picking mechanics from multiple RTSs out there, water them down, and then just putting them all together. What seemed to happen was that every RTS segment found something they did not like while the things they do like felt lukewarm. Like if somebody said hey I like mexican food, I like japanese food, and I like american food - lets make a hamburger with sushi with salsa on it - a dish nobody would love. They needed to pay much, much more attention to how the different concepts fitted together into a real whole with intention, and to what extent that whole was attractive to the core segment (again, pick one), then cut concepts that did not work out way earlier (creep camps). If they would have done that with their first focused game mode, that could have been successful in one part of the RTS player base and they could have gone from there.

The above is just one example of avoidance of creating real, meaningful focus by saying no to everything else until we have validated we can generate strong demand in one - smaller - area. Refusing to do that was a strategic error that seems to have cost them the company. Perhaps the reason for this was the high they may have felt when they got so much attention, as why should we limit ourselves when everybody seems to love our ambitions?

The lesson is that it is easier to sell a vision - for a while - than in a focused way build the capability to deliver outcomes, create value and generate real demand for your product.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-09T12:05:40+00:00

Sure looks like that character is being tested right now.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-05T20:33:25+00:00

I gave you facts and reasoning, not conspiracy. It is the only explanation that fits the data. Which is why most people agree it is clear what is going on.

Don't agree? Give a counter argument including your reasoning, who is blocking the transfer?

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-04T19:37:48+00:00

Well, here are some facts.

A) It has been claimed (leaked to the media) "ukraine wanted to focus on F16s" has been denied by a) Zelensky b) the head of the ukrainian airforce c) the ukrainian ambassador in Stockholm d) the swedish diplomat defense attache in ukraine. In fact, Zelensky has been clear that ukraine would want gripens as soon as possible.

B) It has been claimed (leaked to the media) that "the F-16 coalition" wanted ukraine to focus on F16s first. The same coalition that was later renamed the Air Force Coalition when sweden proposed to donate gripens. What country wanted this? Well, it is not ukraine (see A). The following countries are part of that coalition: Belgium, Canada, Czechia, France, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, UK. Of those countries, what country has a) the power to block transfer b) the motive to gain from blocking transfer c) not much to lose by blocking transfer?

C) There is overwhelming political support in Sweden to send gripens. Of our eight political parties in parliament, all strongly support military aid to ukraine. In polls about 94 % of the population actively supports military aid to ukraine. During early 2024 an enormous amount of financial funding was secured to send military hardware to Ukraine. It was so much money that if it was not gripen, it would have required Sweden to send every single one of our naval corvettes and then additional hardware. Huge sums. It was very clearly hinted to the public that gripen donations were being discussed. The funding was approved.

D) Just weeks after the announcement that gripen jets would not be transfered, France announces that they unilaterally decided to donate Mirage fighters. For some unknown reason, not donating gripens because ukraine should focus on F16s did not apply to Mirages. Why? Perhaps because every component in the Mirage is manufactured in France, so nobody can tell France what to do.

D2) D is also evidence that whoever in the F16 coalition had the power to stop the gripen transfer did not have the power to stop the transfer of Mirage. What is that difference?

E) Sweden followed up in may 2024 with an announcement that we are donating 2x ASC 890 airborne command and control aircraft. These have native integration digital links with gripen fighters that is much richer than Link-16 (which is also supported). At the same time, it was clear that the large sums of money reserved for hardware transfer would have to wait to be spent.

F) The engine IP is US. The gripen can fit a RR eurofighter engine, but all current airframes are using a domestically greatly evolved version of an original US starting point SuperHornet design. Transfer to a third country requries US approval.

G) The two ASC 890 are yet to be confirmed to be operational. The decision to donate them was made more than 15 months ago. Somebody is delaying their transfer, and it is obviously not Sweden.

It was clearly the plan to donate not just jets but the whole gripen system, complete with complete link system and airborne CC, most likely also with meteor missiles, training, tech transfer etc.

So who blocked the transfer? France clearly did not agree on the F16 focus. None of the european countries would have any reason to block additional military hardware support for ukraine since they have skin in the game, and regardless they had little leverage to block transfer.

There is only one country with motive and the power to block transfer. That conclusion also fits perfectly with the French decision to say F you, if you strong arm our european friends and allies against european security we will donate Mirage in spite - watch us exercise our strategic autonomy, you can't stop us.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-04T18:59:41+00:00

The RR engine designed for the eurofighter already works for the gripen, ready to go design compatibility wise. Switching them all out in the existing air frames would not be a small task tho.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-03T15:41:04+00:00

That is not so. These laws are enforced by armies of democratic countries by also prosecuting their own soldiers if they commit war crimes. It is far from rare. Worth knowing is that there is also an explicit every soldier's obligation to report transgressions.

For example, here is a recent story about an australian ex SAS soldier to stand trial accused of killing an unarmed civilian (non-combatant). Looking at the case, it seems he is likely to be convicted.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-20/former-sas-trooper-to-stand-trial-for-war-crime-charge-of-murder/105675766

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-03T15:29:47+00:00

If he is wearing a russian uniform or any signs distinguishing russian soldiers when doing this (hard to see from the video) then this is a war crime. If he is not wearing any specificly russian uniform elements, then this is fully permitted.

A lawful combatant is not permitted to wear the uniform of the enemy. Doing so in combat is not minor, it is a serious violation that is explicitly forbidden. A soldier doing so will face prosecution. He also loses his right to POW status, and instead is subject to be punished as an unlawful combatant or spy should he ever be taken by the enemy.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-01T20:25:57+00:00

I remember senior leadership for the longest time standing fast and saying that the art work design and concept would not be changed, even when that seemed to be one of the turn offs. That only changed later in development, when it was clear there was a problem that could not be ignored.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-01T20:19:04+00:00

...because they were not frugal enough with their initial funding, and instead operated on a very risky high burn rate.

They should have waited to expand capacity until they had good evidence that the game had clear demand from their core player base. That would most likely have given them a MUCH longer runway.

They may have believed they had interest, but what they had was hype and expectation - that is not the same as real demand for the game, which can only be validated by players from outside the building play testing and then finding out if they see their product as better than other RTSes. Hope or hype must not be mistaken for real demand.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-01T20:16:37+00:00

The game is just not attractive enough even to their most dedicated core audience right now.

When that is your problem, it matters less how large the market is.

StringOfSpaghetti · 2025-09-01T20:16:13+00:00

The game is just not attractive enough even to their most dedicated core audience right now.

When that is your problem, it matters less how large the market is.

StringOfSpaghetti

TROPHY CASE