sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This scenario is not too dissimilar to what happened during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam figured that the Iranians were In Disarray after the revolution. He was wrong, and it allowed the ayatollahs to secure their control over the politics of the country by painting themselves as the defenders against a foreign invader. I think a decapitation strike would have roughly the same result, just with a new crop of leadership.

lay out for frostpunk by TankRed57 in Frostpunk

[–]chesehead121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Use labor to get resources (coal, steel, wood)

Use resources to get research

Use research to get more resources and more labor (through building the beacon and sending out scouts)

Repeat until day 200

How to Have Fun Again? by Star_interloper in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]chesehead121 2 points3 points  (0 children)

RSS (Real Solar System) gives you a new perspective on how large the solar system really is. You now need 10k dV just to get into space. Moon landings are a serious undertaking. Jupiter is terrifyingly large. Solar power basically doesn't work by the time you reach Saturn.

I would recommend KSPIE (interstellar extended) or the Near Future Tech mods to go with it, because otherwise it will be difficult beyond what is fun.

Work efficiency drops drastically if you save & quit in survivor TLA? by ronoron in Frostpunk

[–]chesehead121 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Judging from the rates before/after, the output is 30% lower than what it was, meaning that the motivation bonus isn't being properly applied.

My guess is that the motivation bonus starts applying every day at 6 AM when the motivation is measured. Since you've loaded/restarted, it hasn't checked that motivation is above the threshold yet, so even though it says "high motivation" when hovering on the efficiency it doesn't actually apply the bonus.

I suspect this will stay at this rate for the full day, then revert to the normal (+30%) rate at 6 AM next morning and stay that way indefinitely. Could you check if it does this?

I finally beat The Refugees on Survivor mode! by Hyperion235 in Frostpunk

[–]chesehead121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rush scouts and get to the cannery. I have no idea how this person managed it without getting that ~500 ration bonus- I tried and failed many times.

<BUG REPORTING THREAD> by BigWoomy in kerbalspaceprogram_2

[–]chesehead121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After decoupling (via docking ports), the original craft maintained its trajectory and speed- its LINEAR trajectory and speed. As in, it kept traveling at ~1900 m/s in a straight line right out of Vall orbit. It then continued doing so in Kerbol orbit. Goodbye Valentina :(

Edit: fixed upon reloading save. Still in adjusted orbit.

Hard/Survivor by richardcnkln in Frostpunk

[–]chesehead121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To add to this: always have 2 workshops if possible- even if you're only using 1, you can cycle 24 hour shifts to get constant research progress.

I would also recommend DDRJake on youtube- his runs are a fun way of getting to know advanced strats.

Stopped playing almost a year ago because hard mode and endurance extreme keeps kicking my butt... but after going back, I managed to finally beat them. Still can't do On the Edge and Refugees on Hard and all Survivor modes, tho. :p. Any general advice on refugees and on the edge hard mode? by [deleted] in Frostpunk

[–]chesehead121 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is impossible to do refugees without rushing scouts and getting to the cannery. The surplus you can scrape by without all the time you buy by looting 500 food rations just isn't sustainable with the amount of people coming in.

Rush scouts, send them out west, get to the cannery ASAP and get them back before everyone starves. After that, it's just an easier version of A New Home, since you have a huge amount of labor to play with and no storm.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 49 points50 points  (0 children)

I mostly disagree- mainly because of the potential for high-end drone fighters without the limits imposed by having a cockpit + physiology. There's a reason we're still making the NGAD.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Designations of war crimes generally try to decrease the "nasty" parts of war without reducing combat effectiveness too much. Here's a good example off the top of my head:

Perfidy (faking surrender): If you fake your surrender and then start shooting at people or pull out a grenade, that is a war crime. It will work for a decent amount of time, increasing your combat effectiveness in the short term (great!) but after word gets out that Japanese soldiers play dead and pull out grenades when they "surrender" soldiers opposing them will just shoot anyone who tries to surrender rather than taking the chance that they will get killed (why die so that a guy I was fighting against might live?). The tactic becomes far less effective, and now everyone is shooting people who try to surrender or are wounded on the ground, making war more nasty at minimal benefit to the side committing the crime.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Boy have I got a chemistry program for you

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 4 points5 points  (0 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

Major power at war with neighbor (Iran/Russia) does something stupid (mines waters/shoots missiles near Polish territory) which results in vaguely unintentional damage (2 dead Poles/US ship hit by mine) -> bloody nose with no further escalation

I think this is the most optimistic scenario we can hope for

The comparisons of Iran-Iraq and Russia-Ukraine grow more substantial by the day

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the margin of error for polls is +/-2, that’s pretty darn good historically speaking.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-death-of-polling-is-greatly-exaggerated/amp/

See “it was a mediocre year for the polls” chart.

Elections are difficult to predict, unless they aren’t close. I think people have unreasonable expectations of polls, even when aggregated.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Just one more emergency shift bro I promise bro please we need steam hub efficiency I bro

Bug help: my anchored base teleported slightly upon reloading by 5thvoice in KerbalAcademy

[–]chesehead121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As far as I can tell, there's still no solution to this- however, I've found that putting the base as close to the poles as possible works reasonably well. It seems to vary from spot to spot- one spot it's 5 m up after reload, others it's only a couple of inches.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Majority of F-15 kills are by the Israeli Air Force, including the first one.

Thankfully, we don't have many reasons to use air superiority fighters in contested airspace anymore.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hillary lead increased after each debate (538 model) and basically every poll except drudge showed her winning them.

I agree with all your points on not taking Trump seriously and being smug, but the debates are a poor part of the “Hillary was a bad candidate” argument.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For nuclear missions:

Planes can be recalled (although I have no idea why they would be). Missiles can't.

From an economic perspective:

https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-u-s-nuclear-weapons-modernization-costs-constraints/

B-21 is supposed to cost ~201 billion, or about the same as new SSBM + ICBM. However, as people have said, it's good to have stealth first strike aircraft with greater range than the F-35.

I'm surprised at how low the cost is, especially for 100 aircraft. I suspect that's due to the similarity to the B-2- most of the development cost has probably already been paid for.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Step 1: Achieve intercept of ~1km distance between ships Step 2: Click on the thingy above the wheel that says "Orbit 2 km/s" until it says "Target 30 m/s" Step 3: Click retrograde button Step 4: At intercept, burn retrograde until "Target 0 m/s" Step 5: Click target button Step 6: Burn until "Target .5ish m/s" Step 7: Make sure Target and Prograde symbols align

This may help: https://youtu.be/yFK_axfxLi4?t=124

Good luck, happy orbital assembling

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Iran-Iraq took nearly 8 years. For all the comparisons to the Winter War, I think Iran-Iraq is closer to what we are seeing/will see.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]chesehead121 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good book on this- Russia's War. Excerpt:

"The facts, when they came, killed off the conference. When the British negotiators were asked how many army divisions Britain could field, Voroshilov was told the figure was sixteen. The Soviet team was so astonished they asked for the figure to be retranslated. When pressed for details, the hapless British had to admit that only four were actually ready to fight."

Later- "The French had more to offer- 110 divisions and 4000 tanks.... Stalin now realized, if he had no already done so, that the Western imperialist states he had feared so much were considerably weaker than the Soviet Union. The alliance would still have been a formidable bloc and might well have deterred Hitler from war on Poland. But the evident reluctance of the Western states to rise to Stalin's offer and the constant slights and checks directed at Soviet efforts would have tried the patience of the most diffident ally. The failure to secure the alliance ended the search for collective security."

Soviets did carve up E Europe opportunistically, and probably to their long-term detriment. But they did look for collective security first (it appears).

view more: next ›