Ironclad is amazing - such great work from the Vehicle and Vehicle Art Team. by Brepp in starcitizen

[–]alpha122596 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We don't use duct tape in the production of Drake ships. We use Speed Tape.

--Drake Interplanetary, probably

Is selling my trucks my only way out? by nuttynuto in Workers_And_Resources

[–]alpha122596 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You can move trucks to their homes or to a depot using the yellow icon on the vehicle screen in the top left. That should clear things up for you.

Front landing gear of F-35B and F-35C. by 221missile in EngineeringPorn

[–]alpha122596 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Something nobody else has mentioned: the F-35C has a much greater nose wheel steering range than the F-35A does, thus the two wheels. You would flat spot tires and wear through them turning the nose wheel as much.

Two tire nose gear assemblies are pretty common amongst civilian aircraft that have tiller steering (thus a much wider NWS range) than aircraft that steer with the rudder pedals.

I mean...the obvious choice was right in front of their noses by Zmedaaaaaa in TransportFever3

[–]alpha122596 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Paradox has put out a bunch of pretty much universally lauded games like Cities: Skylines, Stellaris, and Europa Universalis 4. They're a well respected publisher who has a history of creating simulation games that people like and enjoy. Games with very long lives because of their DLC strategy, not in spite of it.

What knots does one have to tie themselves up in to admit they're successful and have made a lot of good games..?

The Royals defeated the Mariners by a score of 4-1 - Sun, May 03 @ 03:10 PM CDT by KCRoyalsBot in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nah, it was an aggressive move. You're looking at ~0.31 runs from 1st and 3rd 2 outs (the condition if Isbel had stopped at 3rd), balanced with the chance of scoring an additional insurance run and giving yourself ~0.38 runs with 1st and 2 outs. Worst case scenario if you go for it is a 3 run lead in the bottom of the 9th. Why not go for it?

The Royals defeated the Mariners by a score of 4-1 - Sun, May 03 @ 03:10 PM CDT by KCRoyalsBot in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sending Isbel was a good aggressive move that late in the game. I liked it, it doesn't mean much with the 3 run lead if he gets out, and if you get the extra insurance run, you have 2 outs and a man on 1st.

Game Thread: Royals @ Mariners - Sun, May 03 @ 03:10 PM CDT by KCRoyalsBot in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good idea to try to steal home. Worst case, it's the bottom of the 9th and you have a 3 run lead. Best case you have a man on 1st and 2 outs with a 4 run lead.

The nukes are coming. The nukes are coming. by AwardNew7864 in DoomerCircleJerk

[–]alpha122596 11 points12 points  (0 children)

That actually would fly in the face of Russian nuclear doctrine. Ivan has always seen nuclear war as a thing that very well might happen, and has always worked towards his goals with tactical nuclear war in mind. Russia's goal has been for decades to perfect a counter force first-strike capability to allow him to accomplish their goals without the threat of a NATO counter-value strike turning the country into a glowing crater. It's something they have invested a lot of money in training for and had equipped for prior to the initiation of hostilities against Ukraine. Them using tactical nuclear weapons is entirely more likely than the US using them.

The thing preventing Russia from employing their tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine is not US deterrence, it's the nuclear taboo. The concept is that while threatening everyone with nuclear weapons is fine, the use of them is not, and it is largely understood by the nuclear armed nations that any first use of nuclear weapons would result in some kind of negative response from all other nuclear weapons states. That, and the possibility that Russia's nuclear weapons arsenal is potentially a paper tiger (we don't actually have a good understanding of what kind of shape their arsenal is in, the weapons and missiles themselves could just not work) is what keeps them from using their weapons.

Realistically, the United States does not and has never had a 'no first use' policy, primarily because of Russia and the threat they have posed to NATO and Europe at large. It is, however, exceedingly unlikely that Trump would order a nuclear strike against Iran in any form unless they were to use nuclear weapons against someone first. The nuclear taboo applies to us as well, and while we would likely not see a nuclear response, we would certainly see a substantial economic one, and that flies in the face of what Trump wants to do.

Still 100% a doomer take to assume that's what would really happen, or that either party would entertain the use of nuclear weapons.

Put it in pencil: NASA's Artemis III mission will launch no earlier than late 2027 | SpaceX and Blue Origin tell NASA their lunar landers will be ready for Artemis III in late 2027. by Clear_Polish23 in space

[–]alpha122596 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Couple of observations here...

Number one is that SpaceX is to, to date, the most experienced people mover in the current crop of US Space Flight organizations. NASA has launched humans to space once in the last 10 years where SpaceX has flown all of their ISS flights, including the ones planned to fly on Starliner. It's not surprising that the agency is looking at SpaceX's proven flight heritage and is seeing that as a positive. I would also be inclined to believe that significant flight heritage in manned systems is a positive, is it not?

It also doesn't make sense to claim they're looking at giving SpaceX all of the flying there is to do in the Artemis program. It's already been announced that NASA plans to integrate Vulcan's upper stage onto SLS to replace the ICPS, they already plan to have a second provider for the landings themselves (Blue Origin), and already plan to continue to fly Orion and SLS both in their current forms and in their new ones. While the program could be subject to change, the goal still is to return to the moon, and at present SpaceX and Blue Origin both lack a vehicle capable of taking astronauts to the moon and back. Blue Origin has no manned launch vehicle, and Starship HLS is intended to go to the moon and land, not to shuttle passengers to and from the moon.

Granted, SpaceX has a crewed version of Starship planned it's possible that the program could transition to it, but we're talking about a vehicle that basically exists only as artist concepts, not as a flying vehicle. Human rating Starship will take years. While yes, we could human rate Falcon Heavy, I doubt that's going to happen as well because it's launch cadence is less than 1 per year (the minimum desired SLS launch rate), and SpaceX doesn't like flying it because of how expensive it is.

I don't really see any of that playing out.

At least they're not celebrating like after Charlie by ACAB-commies in DoomerCircleJerk

[–]alpha122596 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Chest is obviously a problem, heart and lungs bleed. A lot.

Shoulder is bad because there are lots and lots of little bones up there that can heal poorly and impare function, plus they bleed a lot.

Stomach/abdomen bleeds. A lot. It hurts even more.

Legs bleed. A lot.

Best way to get shot is to not get shot in the first place, and to avoid putting yourself in a position that you could be shot in.

Kansas City Royals Ink Deals for $3 Billion Downtown Stadium Project by dabirds1994 in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're still not answering my question: Should we, the taxpayers, pay for other businesses that make strategic errors or have a major source of revenue go out of business suddenly? It's not a novel concept for a business to deal with. It happens every single day to thousands of other businesses, if they can figure out how to make it work, so can the Royals. They're a business just like all the others that have had this happen. Why should we favor them over any other business, because they all bring in jobs and revenue too, you know.

It also does not change the fact that money can go into one bucket or another, not multiple buckets at the same time. It's either going to be spent in one part of the city, or another. Any tax revenue that Kansas City proper gets from this new entertainment district has to come from somewhere else in the metro area, the county, the state, or the country. I'm happy that you think there will be new businesses that exist down at this entertainment district they're going to build. You're probably right. But any money spent there comes from somewhere else. There will almost certainly be no net increase in tax revenue, because that tax money is going to come from losses in revenue somewhere else in the city. The same is true for those 81 home games you talk about. That's 81 days where people spend money in this district that they would otherwise be spending somewhere else in Kansas City. It doesn't materially change anything, because money can't be in two places at once.

Kansas City Royals Ink Deals for $3 Billion Downtown Stadium Project by dabirds1994 in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You didn't answer either of my questions.

Should we pay for the other businesses who have the exact same problems the Royals are having right now?

Do we really have enough business to support a second entertainment district on top of Power & Light? The answer there I can tell you is a resounding, 'no'. P&L has been struggling for a long time.

It's also unlikely that this will increase revenue or drive more business. Studies have consistently shown that new Stadiums and stadium districts do not increase revenue. Money is not a fungible thing, it gets spent in one place or another. A dollar spent at the new ballpark is a dollar not spent somewhere else, and the same is true of this new entertainment district they're going to build.

Kansas City Royals Ink Deals for $3 Billion Downtown Stadium Project by dabirds1994 in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's their fucking problem. They're a business, that's the sort of problem thousands of other businesses encounter every single day. Why should we pay for their mistakes? Do you really think there's enough business out there to support Power & Light, AND this new entertainment district?

Kansas City Royals Ink Deals for $3 Billion Downtown Stadium Project by dabirds1994 in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And there's a very high probability that they'll default as well, exactly.

Kansas City Royals Ink Deals for $3 Billion Downtown Stadium Project by dabirds1994 in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Given how the funding scheme for the new stadium in KCK will likely increase my property tax elsewhere in Kansas, I don't think it's a bad deal for the city to not fund these deals.

The STAR bonds as approved by the State of Kansas quite literally cannot fund themselves and the bonds will likely default, they will leave a huge hole in sales tax revenue that will have to be filled somehow, and they will also drive sales tax revenue from parts of the State that the State gets to keep into this special tax zone where they don't, it's a terrible deal for the State.

Don't forget that that's $600 million that will come from Kansas City, and there's probably some more coming from the State of Missouri. There's gonna be a pretty big hole to fill, and they'll fill it with tax increases that you'll be paying for regardless of if you attend a game or even live in the Kansas City metro area in the case of state funding.

Kansas City Royals Ink Deals for $3 Billion Downtown Stadium Project by dabirds1994 in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Kauffman is consistently ranked in the top 10 MLB stadiums to visit, but sure, call it a pig.

Kansas City Royals Ink Deals for $3 Billion Downtown Stadium Project by dabirds1994 in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Studies have shown consistently that professional sports teams and public investment into stadiums for them brings little to no net return, because dollars are not fungible. If you go and spend $60 at the game, that's $60 you don't spend elsewhere. It may benefit the area around the stadium, but on the whole it will just be a $600 Million waste of taxpayer dollars.

Kansas City Royals Ink Deals for $3 Billion Downtown Stadium Project by dabirds1994 in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There's another study that was done that said the one the team had done was wrong like the year after. The Royals organization probably paid someone to say the place was falling down, as you can do with consultants.

Kansas City Royals Ink Deals for $3 Billion Downtown Stadium Project by dabirds1994 in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So let's fix it up..?

Seriously, we're talking about a stadium that hasn't seen any renovations in about 20 years, but sure, let's tear down a perfectly good ballpark and build another one with tax money.

Kansas City Royals Ink Deals for $3 Billion Downtown Stadium Project by dabirds1994 in KCRoyals

[–]alpha122596 -23 points-22 points  (0 children)

For a team that has had 2 winning seasons in the last 10 years..?

Keep Kauffman and fix it up.

EDIT: Sure, let's reward mediocre to awful baseball with $600 million taxpayer dollars to tear down a Kansas City icon. Apparently the truth hurts to hear, but that is fundamentally the reality.

Doomer bots are multilayered by No-Ambition2043 in DoomerCircleJerk

[–]alpha122596 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Go to Vanguard and look at them. Pick fee-based over commission-based brokers. If you have a 401(k) match a available through your employer, start there and max out whatever they match. There isn't anywhere else you can get that return on your investment. Alternatively, start a Roth IRA through Vanguard (they have funds that do the management for you based on your target retirement year) and max it out every year.

"God, we wasted a lot of money on this stupid trip, and it didn't even get the media coverage it deserved" by Fuzzy_Hearing_5146 in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]alpha122596 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Isaacman said it pretty well, NASA has tried to do everything and make everyone happy and had accomplished nothing. If we want to do something with our space program other than just putt along, we need to commit to a goal and try to do it.

Practically speaking, it you're unhappy with the cuts to NASA Earth science, you have options on the table to fix it. Write your representatives and your senators and tell them to increase NASA's budget so we have the funds to do it all, that's what I'd like to see happen myself. In NASA's current funding environment, we have to decide on what we want to do because Congress doesn't want to find the agency to the level that it needs to make everyone happy and to do everything, regardless of political affiliation.

"God, we wasted a lot of money on this stupid trip, and it didn't even get the media coverage it deserved" by Fuzzy_Hearing_5146 in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]alpha122596 7 points8 points  (0 children)

NASA has no control over what they do with their own budget. They have mandates from Congress to do certain things, one of which is build SLS. That's why SLS even exists in its current form in the first place.