The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Open Thread 74
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This week’s Open Thread.

***

@ak

More notable posts since the last Open Thread in case you missed any of them.

***

Featured

***

Russia

***

World

  • US declares IRGC is a terrorist organization, Iran reciprocates designating CENTCOM as same. More rhetoric, or are we again trending towards wars for freedumb (and flagging approval ratings)?
  • Andrew Yang’s op-ed on CNN
  • Audacious Epigone: Support for Eugenics, by Race
  • Peter Frost: They really are smart … and other surprises
    • Expects large scale African migration into demographically weakening China later this century. I can see this happening. As spandrell says, Chinese HBD realism is folksy, not “scientific”. Flimsy foundations against the Poz storm.

***

Science & Culture

***

Humor & Powerful Takes

***

 
• Tags: Open Thread, Russiagate 
Hide 631 CommentsLeave a Comment
631 Comments to "Open Thread 74"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Kissing the feet of Africans is probably a good way to get hookworm, but it is not a sufficient position of humility – really the leaders of the West should lie prone while the incoming Africans walk over them.

    • Replies: @Realist

    Kissing the feet of Africans is probably a good way to get hookworm,....
     
    It's better than kissing other male parts as many priests are want to do.
  2. @songbird
    Kissing the feet of Africans is probably a good way to get hookworm, but it is not a sufficient position of humility - really the leaders of the West should lie prone while the incoming Africans walk over them.

    Kissing the feet of Africans is probably a good way to get hookworm,….

    It’s better than kissing other male parts as many priests are want to do.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    It’s better than kissing other male parts as many priests are wont to do.

    Not only priests, alas . . .

    Health officials have reached a tentative agreement with New York City's ultra-Orthodox community over regulating the controversial practice known as metzitzah b'peh, or "oral suction circumcisions," the Associated Press reported Tuesday.

    The tradition of metzitzah b'peh goes back to biblical times but has created a modern-day dilemma for religiously observant mankind. New York City officials linked the practice to 17 cases of infant herpes since 2000, of whom two died. In the latest development, the city will stop requiring mohels who use oral suction to have parents sign consent forms, which many hadn't complied with anyway. Instead the city will focus its efforts on educating members of the ultra-Orthodox community about the risks and dangers of the practice. "Our goal is to achieve awareness of the risks," city representative Avi Fink stated.

    https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-what-is-oral-suction-circumcision-1.5311796
     
  3. Regarding Brazil:

    A constitutional amendment limits growth in government spending to what is needed to keep up with inflation

    This is quite interesting. Of course, their inflation is higher, but on this issue they seem technically superior to the US. The US possibly would have been a far better country than it is if it had not become so war-prone.

  4. …Shipping capacity of Russian Arctic sea route to top 80 million tons in five years
    Putin arrived at new Mercedes-Benz in Moscow region…

    American elites self-destruct over who will go to prison over ever more stupid non-crimes like talking to foreigners or lying to authorities, Britain drags a cat-loving nonconformist from a banana republic embassy, and Pope kisses black feet, again and again. That’s the state of the West.

    On the other hand, Russia has just opened the biggest Mercedes factory outside Germany, North Stream II is almost done, and Kiev is talking about a ‘compromise’ deal with Moscow since they are losing $20 billion in exports they used to send to Russia (see an interesting trial balloon in Reuters). And the long hot summers highlight the geographic reality that further up north will be better in the future.

    One of our top right-wing politicians (in Slovakia) went on a long TV rant about how Germany is busily trading with Russia, re-routing gas to its territory, and then Merkel tells everyone else in EU to keep their mouth shut and keep the sanctions on Russia, killing our exports. He attacked Merkel because he doesn’t have the balls to say anything about Washington.

    What we have in Europe are layers of fear and dysfunction, when I saw the Notre Dame fire my first thought was that Macron stored weapons there against the yellow vests. My second thought was that maybe Putin did it, somebody will for sure look into it.

    It has been a long way up for the current Western elite, they lied, cheated and bombed their way up for the last 20 years, and they also delivered some good stuff. Now it is inevitable that we will retrace all the glory on the way down, every painful step of the way. That’s why hysteria, clowns and cult-like behaviors are everywhere: it helps to numb the pain.

  5. Will POTUS and very devout American “Christian” Pete Buttplug wage war against Conservative Christian Russia? Who will the Catholic Pope in a pink sequin gown with glittering rhinestones side with?

    • Replies: @216
    The same J-left media that subverted and mocked Christianity for decades will make an abrupt U-turn and declare that anyone criticizing the faith of "Pious Pete" is a bigot.

    Trump's adultery and divorces do the Right no favors, a sizeable number of people are alienated by his disgusting personal life. Unless Pete is "mongamish", he will look borderline "chaste" by comparison.
  6. Putin arrived at new Mercedes-Benz in Moscow region… in an Aurus

    Does Putin always take his overcoat off so dramatically? That must have taken years of practice.

  7. Andrew Yang’s op-ed on CNN

    Well, I swallowed my cynicism for a moment and tried reading it.

    Yuck.

    How anyone could take this guy seriously is amazing to me when he openly admits he’ll do nothing to change our disastrous immigration regime.

    At least Trump lied about it.

    I’d rather be lied to than told honestly that nothing will change.

    A man’s gotta have a dream, after all.

    • Replies: @216
    The Dems eliminated superdelegates for this round of primaries, so the convention could be brokered with the large number of candidates.

    The utility of Yang is in dragging out the process, and introducing techno-skepticism into a party owned by Big Tech. Dissident Right voters don't have much of a reason to vote in the GOP primary, as no challenger is going to emerge to his right. So their most effective action is to register as a Democrat, and vote for Yang.

    I don't suggest volunteering for his camapaign, unless you are stuck on a college campus. Nor should anything other than a nominal donation be given.

    As an added benefit, if Yang overperforms in Iowa/NH, the internal contradictions of the Dems will be exposed. Expect a "know your place" attitude towards Asian voters from the other PeeOhCee. That could mean dividends for the GOP in the fall, keeping PA/FL in the GOP column, reclaiming lost House seats in CA, and potentially flipping VA.

    Yang is the kind of candidate the GOP wants straight out of central casting.
    , @Yevardian
    https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/468/752/99b.jpg
    , @notanon
    i think YangGang was a stage in grieving for Trump's surrender and 2020 will turn out to be the year of intersectional trolling to get all the Dem factions at war with each other and peel off the last few remaining hetero white dudes.
  8. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:

    I read an interesting comment somewhere (maybe here?) re: immigration that I think bears repeating:

    Suppose that the majority (80-90%) of undocumented immigrants/asylum seekers in a given Western country are young unmarried unaccompanied women – how does that change the posture of the intelligentsia towards immigration?

    My guess, at least in the US, is that in this scenario immigration is severely restricted, but indirectly under the guise of “combating sex trafficking.” Would be interested in other opinions.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    Yeah I think you read it here somewhere, but what occurs to me is that there are a large number of 'unaccompanied' young women back in the third-world hellholes our 'migrants' come from. It's almost as if they're asking for 'sex tourism'.

    Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey does ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting
     
    In an unrelated note, does anyone here know women who aren't either doing keto or gluten-free or (most commonly) both?
    , @songbird
    Depends if they could work in chicken packaging plants, pick grapes, etc.

    What if they were beautiful, traditional women, who were antagonistic to feminism and big government, married local, and had high fertility? They would probably lose the black lesbian vote. Actually, more likely, all Dem support.
  9. @War for Blair Mountain
    Will POTUS and very devout American “Christian” Pete Buttplug wage war against Conservative Christian Russia? Who will the Catholic Pope in a pink sequin gown with glittering rhinestones side with?

    The same J-left media that subverted and mocked Christianity for decades will make an abrupt U-turn and declare that anyone criticizing the faith of “Pious Pete” is a bigot.

    Trump’s adultery and divorces do the Right no favors, a sizeable number of people are alienated by his disgusting personal life. Unless Pete is “mongamish”, he will look borderline “chaste” by comparison.

    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala

    The same J-left media that subverted and mocked Christianity for decades will make an abrupt U-turn and declare that anyone criticizing the faith of “Pious Pete” is a bigot.
     
    Yes. They've already done this U-turn in Lutheran countries where the churches got fully pozzed and turned into another LBGT pro-migrant multiculti organization. I remember when I was young the left here used to actually oppose blasphemy laws and demand church and state separation but now the church is theirs and the left wants blasphemy laws and the state church.
  10. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Andrew Yang’s op-ed on CNN

     

    Well, I swallowed my cynicism for a moment and tried reading it.

    Yuck.

    How anyone could take this guy seriously is amazing to me when he openly admits he'll do nothing to change our disastrous immigration regime.

    At least Trump lied about it.

    I'd rather be lied to than told honestly that nothing will change.

    A man's gotta have a dream, after all.

    The Dems eliminated superdelegates for this round of primaries, so the convention could be brokered with the large number of candidates.

    The utility of Yang is in dragging out the process, and introducing techno-skepticism into a party owned by Big Tech. Dissident Right voters don’t have much of a reason to vote in the GOP primary, as no challenger is going to emerge to his right. So their most effective action is to register as a Democrat, and vote for Yang.

    I don’t suggest volunteering for his camapaign, unless you are stuck on a college campus. Nor should anything other than a nominal donation be given.

    As an added benefit, if Yang overperforms in Iowa/NH, the internal contradictions of the Dems will be exposed. Expect a “know your place” attitude towards Asian voters from the other PeeOhCee. That could mean dividends for the GOP in the fall, keeping PA/FL in the GOP column, reclaiming lost House seats in CA, and potentially flipping VA.

    Yang is the kind of candidate the GOP wants straight out of central casting.

    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    His jibber jabber about robots is largely bullshit.....Robots can’t vote us into a White Racial Minority within the borders of America...Yang’s fellow Han are doing it in real time....Robots are Scab Labor I like...Chinese LEGAL IMMIGRANTS are Scab Labor I don’t like and don’t want in America........Brad Griffith gotta be mentally ill...
  11. @216
    The same J-left media that subverted and mocked Christianity for decades will make an abrupt U-turn and declare that anyone criticizing the faith of "Pious Pete" is a bigot.

    Trump's adultery and divorces do the Right no favors, a sizeable number of people are alienated by his disgusting personal life. Unless Pete is "mongamish", he will look borderline "chaste" by comparison.

    The same J-left media that subverted and mocked Christianity for decades will make an abrupt U-turn and declare that anyone criticizing the faith of “Pious Pete” is a bigot.

    Yes. They’ve already done this U-turn in Lutheran countries where the churches got fully pozzed and turned into another LBGT pro-migrant multiculti organization. I remember when I was young the left here used to actually oppose blasphemy laws and demand church and state separation but now the church is theirs and the left wants blasphemy laws and the state church.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @AP
    And in Ukraine:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ukrainian-catholic-patriarch-responds-to-accusation-that-he-is-liberal-on-h

    The Patriarch declined to classify his views as liberal or conservative but responded, in Ukrainian, “In accordance with the teaching of the Church, homosexual behavior is a grave sin, which calls to Heaven for vengeance.”

    The designation of grave sins includes “willful murder.”

    “In terms of gravity, the sin of homosexuality is comparable to that of murder,” he said. “Therefore, if we are talking today about the right to have a homosexual 'relationship,' then we must also talk about the right to murder.”
  12. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Andrew Yang’s op-ed on CNN

     

    Well, I swallowed my cynicism for a moment and tried reading it.

    Yuck.

    How anyone could take this guy seriously is amazing to me when he openly admits he'll do nothing to change our disastrous immigration regime.

    At least Trump lied about it.

    I'd rather be lied to than told honestly that nothing will change.

    A man's gotta have a dream, after all.

    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    1,000= the new opium wars....
  13. @216
    The Dems eliminated superdelegates for this round of primaries, so the convention could be brokered with the large number of candidates.

    The utility of Yang is in dragging out the process, and introducing techno-skepticism into a party owned by Big Tech. Dissident Right voters don't have much of a reason to vote in the GOP primary, as no challenger is going to emerge to his right. So their most effective action is to register as a Democrat, and vote for Yang.

    I don't suggest volunteering for his camapaign, unless you are stuck on a college campus. Nor should anything other than a nominal donation be given.

    As an added benefit, if Yang overperforms in Iowa/NH, the internal contradictions of the Dems will be exposed. Expect a "know your place" attitude towards Asian voters from the other PeeOhCee. That could mean dividends for the GOP in the fall, keeping PA/FL in the GOP column, reclaiming lost House seats in CA, and potentially flipping VA.

    Yang is the kind of candidate the GOP wants straight out of central casting.

    His jibber jabber about robots is largely bullshit…..Robots can’t vote us into a White Racial Minority within the borders of America…Yang’s fellow Han are doing it in real time….Robots are Scab Labor I like…Chinese LEGAL IMMIGRANTS are Scab Labor I don’t like and don’t want in America……..Brad Griffith gotta be mentally ill…

  14. @Yevardian
    https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/468/752/99b.jpg

    1,000= the new opium wars….

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    That makes no sense, he's an ethnic Chinaman. Maybe you're making some obscure point about Jews again?
  15. I have decided a useful metric of functional intelligence on a societal level is the performance of effective maintenance. All industrial technology requires maintenance for proper function. Societies that fail to perform such maintenance demonstrate the inability of their people to comprehend this basic reality.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    I concluded this the moment I saw Russia in the mid 90's. The place was full of buildings, structures and machines that when new would have compared to Europe, the US and Japan which I knew. None of it was maintained. I put this down to lack of private ownership but the cultural problem is deeper. It is also to do with the time horizon of a society. If you have no faith in the outlook five years from now, why fix anything. Dubai/Sharjah holds together. Sharjah is a dump compared to Dubai. Everything is poorer but it is still kept in order. Zambia is full of stuff not maintained, recapitalized since the British left, from the Kariba Dam on down.
  16. @Anonymous
    I read an interesting comment somewhere (maybe here?) re: immigration that I think bears repeating:

    Suppose that the majority (80-90%) of undocumented immigrants/asylum seekers in a given Western country are young unmarried unaccompanied women - how does that change the posture of the intelligentsia towards immigration?

    My guess, at least in the US, is that in this scenario immigration is severely restricted, but indirectly under the guise of "combating sex trafficking." Would be interested in other opinions.

    Yeah I think you read it here somewhere, but what occurs to me is that there are a large number of ‘unaccompanied’ young women back in the third-world hellholes our ‘migrants’ come from. It’s almost as if they’re asking for ‘sex tourism’.

    Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey does ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting

    In an unrelated note, does anyone here know women who aren’t either doing keto or gluten-free or (most commonly) both?

    • Replies: @Dacian Julien Soros bis
    In a related note, what the evidence that keto diet does something to your benefit? Has anyone seen it improve physical or mental abilities in a RCT? Did it prevent or cure any disease?

    And if not, what does it say about people who use the K word in a non-ironic way?

    OT: I am sorry for changing names too often, but I won't be bothered with providing personal info, and it seems that any handle I use gets registered and used by others.
  17. @Anonymous
    I read an interesting comment somewhere (maybe here?) re: immigration that I think bears repeating:

    Suppose that the majority (80-90%) of undocumented immigrants/asylum seekers in a given Western country are young unmarried unaccompanied women - how does that change the posture of the intelligentsia towards immigration?

    My guess, at least in the US, is that in this scenario immigration is severely restricted, but indirectly under the guise of "combating sex trafficking." Would be interested in other opinions.

    Depends if they could work in chicken packaging plants, pick grapes, etc.

    What if they were beautiful, traditional women, who were antagonistic to feminism and big government, married local, and had high fertility? They would probably lose the black lesbian vote. Actually, more likely, all Dem support.

  18. AP says:
    @Jaakko Raipala

    The same J-left media that subverted and mocked Christianity for decades will make an abrupt U-turn and declare that anyone criticizing the faith of “Pious Pete” is a bigot.
     
    Yes. They've already done this U-turn in Lutheran countries where the churches got fully pozzed and turned into another LBGT pro-migrant multiculti organization. I remember when I was young the left here used to actually oppose blasphemy laws and demand church and state separation but now the church is theirs and the left wants blasphemy laws and the state church.

    And in Ukraine:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ukrainian-catholic-patriarch-responds-to-accusation-that-he-is-liberal-on-h

    The Patriarch declined to classify his views as liberal or conservative but responded, in Ukrainian, “In accordance with the teaching of the Church, homosexual behavior is a grave sin, which calls to Heaven for vengeance.”

    The designation of grave sins includes “willful murder.”

    “In terms of gravity, the sin of homosexuality is comparable to that of murder,” he said. “Therefore, if we are talking today about the right to have a homosexual ‘relationship,’ then we must also talk about the right to murder.”

  19. @War for Blair Mountain
    1,000= the new opium wars....

    That makes no sense, he’s an ethnic Chinaman. Maybe you’re making some obscure point about Jews again?

  20. In Most-Persecuted-Group-in-History news,

    Good Friday 2019 has come and gone on the Western church’s calendar; Potatus, who claims to be a Christian, tweeted “Happy Passover” to all his friends “in America and Israel” — but no tweet of any kind about Good Friday.

    Working theory: Any reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is tweet-vetoed by Kushner.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Good Friday isn't a big deal in America.

    If there's no Happy Easter tweet tomorrow you might be onto something.
  21. America 2019-beyond 2019=OPEN SEWER…..

  22. Robert Mueller, Putin puppet.

  23. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:

    Good droll piece by Masha Gessen on the Mueller Report. Her reading was basically that all the “collusion” amounted to puffery by a bunch of grifters (Russian and American, I think there was a Ukrainian in there as well) who overstated their own importance and access.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-hustlers-and-swindlers-of-the-mueller-report

  24. I read recently that there was a Russian language forum where some guy (the website was apparently taken down and the guy arrested in late 2017) uploaded all (?) flight tests of the Su-57 fighter jet. Apparently by adding up the total flight hours it totaled just 1600 flight hours by late 2017, and the rate wasn’t even increasing in 2016-17 (while they were increasing the fleet from five to ten – currently there are just nine or fewer flyable prototypes, because one of the early prototypes is now only used for ground testing, with many of the vital parts, like engines, removed), so the program really seemed to be stalling at that point. What I read elsewhere is that a minimal flight test program of a new fighter jet usually takes 20,000 flight hours or more – so the Su-57 is nowhere near serial production level. The minimal numbers produced (maybe one this year, another one next year…) seem to support it. They also don’t yet have the new engine ready for production – despite only producing one plane per year, those are still produced with the old engine. (It’s a slightly stronger version of the Su-35S engine, basically stronger only because they simply loosened temperature limitations, greatly reducing the longevity of the engine.)

    I don’t think it can be considered good news that globohomo is now producing hundreds of F-35s (besides the already existing 170+ F-22s), with hundreds of thousands of flight hours accrued to it. Contrary to claims of its detractors, the F-35 is actually superior to the F-16 even in WVR combat (its aerodynamics is superior while loaded with weapons, and its engine is stronger relative to the loaded weight), even in a machine gun dogfight it is its equal. Apparently until very recently the plane’s performance was limited by its software.

    Russia, get your shit together!

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Probably the Russians aren't allocating enough money to the program. Despite tensions with America I get the impression that Russia doesn't feel its military security is seriously threatened. It's not like the Russian economy can't support a larger defense budget.

    I'm deeply skeptical of the claim that the F-35 is superior to the F-16 in WVR combat.

    F-35A (loaded weight) thrust-to-weight ratio: 0.87
    F-16C Block 50 (loaded weight) thrust-to-weight ratio: 1.07

    Published specs also note that with 50% fuel the respective thrust-to-weight ratios are 1.07 and 1.24 respectively. So an F-35A with half of its internal fuel has the same thrust-to-weight ratio as a fully loaded F-16C.

    F-35A (loaded weight) wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft²
    F-16C Block 50 (loaded weight): 88.3 lb/ft²

    I can't find the published specifications for drag area, but it's quite obvious that the F-35 has a considerably larger drag area than the F-16. And the airframe doesn't appear to offer any advantage in body lift either. Probably the opposite is true--the F-16 offers more wing-body blending since its airframe has no compromises needed for stealth shaping.

    Maximum g-loading for both aircraft is claimed to be the same, 9 g. But there are a lot of reports of the F-16 being capable of pulling 12 g, which I've never heard claimed of the F-35. Since it's a larger aircraft it's unlikely too.

    So based on published specifications the F-16 by definition has superior acceleration, climb, and turn performance. The F-35 would only be superior in a dive since it's heavier and has more thrust. Given that NATO air forces generally do not operate below 15,000 feet that is valuable.

    The F-35 does has a superior cannon to the F-16, though it's still worse than what all non-American fighter aircraft offer. This continues a grand Air Force tradition of having inferior guns dating back to 1940. It might have superior situational awareness thanks to its Elbit helmet and EODAS (six distributed infrared sensors), though the F-16 has far superior visibility for the pilot from the cockpit.

    It's also worth pointing out that in its normal "stealth" configuration the F-35 would take longer to launch its infrared missiles since they are carried internally.

    Any claims that the F-35 offers superior or even equal WVR performance to the F-16 cannot be taken seriously.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't know how current it is - not something I actively track - but Alexander Mercouris had a seemingly well informed article on this a couple of years ago: http://theduran.com/russias-new-su-t-50-fifth-generation-fighter-gets-new-engine-new-name/

    Incidentally, a pity that he seems to have stopped blogging.
    , @Dmitry
    Situation of the Su-57 program, is that they are possibly waiting for completion of work on new type 30 engines, and these engines will be available from 2023-2025.

    In the intervening time, they are beginning serial production slowly - they have ordered 2 planes to be purchased to 2020.

    Beyond these public facts - it just is interpretation. It's possible everything is going fine, and they are just going slowly until the engines are ready. It's also possible they are only ordering such low numbers, because they are becoming more interested in developing the 6th generation.

    I think I remember there were some vague suggestion of early research into the 6th generation, when I watched a television interview with the program head. (But this was last year, when I was answering the same question from you before).

    Anyway, the air force is being modernized in a steady way, with production of the Su-35 at around 1 plane every 5 weeks.

    -

    As for the F-35. It is 40 years since the F-16, so it would unlikely the new plane is not an improvement over a previous generation introduced many decades earlier.

    They are recently installing the software upgrade in F-35, which will unlock more of its capability. For example, F-35 were software limited until this year to 7gs. And with the next block of software, they are being unlocked, to operate up to 9gs.

    One disadvantage, relative to Su-57, will be lack of thrust-vectoring in the F-35. However, the need for thrust-vectoring, and low-speed supermaneuverability, may also be reduced by introduction of greater "off-boresight missiles", compared to the 1980s.

    To copypaste my earlier comment below:

    I watched a documentary last year about the Eurofighter vs MiG-29.

    In the documentary, the pilot explains the importance of supermaneuverability at low speed, and consequent superiority of MiG-29.

    At 9:30 – 11:30 in the documentary, pilot explains what was the importance of these maneuvers – angular maneuvering was essential for missiles to target the opponent.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B932cUZLKzg

    New planes and missiles since the 1990s have more “high off-boresight" capacity, allowing missiles to target at wider angles (reducing the amount of angular turn required to target the opponent), so low-speed supermaneuverability may have become less important than in the 1980s.

    Still from the aesthetic viewpoint, there is no American equivalent.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZquLvrj9GI

  25. @Realist

    Kissing the feet of Africans is probably a good way to get hookworm,....
     
    It's better than kissing other male parts as many priests are want to do.

    It’s better than kissing other male parts as many priests are wont to do.

    Not only priests, alas . . .

    Health officials have reached a tentative agreement with New York City’s ultra-Orthodox community over regulating the controversial practice known as metzitzah b’peh, or “oral suction circumcisions,” the Associated Press reported Tuesday.

    The tradition of metzitzah b’peh goes back to biblical times but has created a modern-day dilemma for religiously observant mankind. New York City officials linked the practice to 17 cases of infant herpes since 2000, of whom two died. In the latest development, the city will stop requiring mohels who use oral suction to have parents sign consent forms, which many hadn’t complied with anyway. Instead the city will focus its efforts on educating members of the ultra-Orthodox community about the risks and dangers of the practice. “Our goal is to achieve awareness of the risks,” city representative Avi Fink stated.

    https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-what-is-oral-suction-circumcision-1.5311796

    • Replies: @Realist
    OMG
  26. @for-the-record
    It’s better than kissing other male parts as many priests are wont to do.

    Not only priests, alas . . .

    Health officials have reached a tentative agreement with New York City's ultra-Orthodox community over regulating the controversial practice known as metzitzah b'peh, or "oral suction circumcisions," the Associated Press reported Tuesday.

    The tradition of metzitzah b'peh goes back to biblical times but has created a modern-day dilemma for religiously observant mankind. New York City officials linked the practice to 17 cases of infant herpes since 2000, of whom two died. In the latest development, the city will stop requiring mohels who use oral suction to have parents sign consent forms, which many hadn't complied with anyway. Instead the city will focus its efforts on educating members of the ultra-Orthodox community about the risks and dangers of the practice. "Our goal is to achieve awareness of the risks," city representative Avi Fink stated.

    https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-what-is-oral-suction-circumcision-1.5311796
     

    OMG

  27. @Hail
    In Most-Persecuted-Group-in-History news,

    Good Friday 2019 has come and gone on the Western church's calendar; Potatus, who claims to be a Christian, tweeted "Happy Passover" to all his friends "in America and Israel" -- but no tweet of any kind about Good Friday.

    Working theory: Any reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is tweet-vetoed by Kushner.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4jzDKGW4AAjgC-.jpg

    Good Friday isn’t a big deal in America.

    If there’s no Happy Easter tweet tomorrow you might be onto something.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Let alone a Happy Palm Sunday for those observing on the old calendar.
  28. @reiner Tor
    I read recently that there was a Russian language forum where some guy (the website was apparently taken down and the guy arrested in late 2017) uploaded all (?) flight tests of the Su-57 fighter jet. Apparently by adding up the total flight hours it totaled just 1600 flight hours by late 2017, and the rate wasn't even increasing in 2016-17 (while they were increasing the fleet from five to ten - currently there are just nine or fewer flyable prototypes, because one of the early prototypes is now only used for ground testing, with many of the vital parts, like engines, removed), so the program really seemed to be stalling at that point. What I read elsewhere is that a minimal flight test program of a new fighter jet usually takes 20,000 flight hours or more - so the Su-57 is nowhere near serial production level. The minimal numbers produced (maybe one this year, another one next year...) seem to support it. They also don't yet have the new engine ready for production - despite only producing one plane per year, those are still produced with the old engine. (It's a slightly stronger version of the Su-35S engine, basically stronger only because they simply loosened temperature limitations, greatly reducing the longevity of the engine.)

    I don't think it can be considered good news that globohomo is now producing hundreds of F-35s (besides the already existing 170+ F-22s), with hundreds of thousands of flight hours accrued to it. Contrary to claims of its detractors, the F-35 is actually superior to the F-16 even in WVR combat (its aerodynamics is superior while loaded with weapons, and its engine is stronger relative to the loaded weight), even in a machine gun dogfight it is its equal. Apparently until very recently the plane's performance was limited by its software.

    Russia, get your shit together!

    Probably the Russians aren’t allocating enough money to the program. Despite tensions with America I get the impression that Russia doesn’t feel its military security is seriously threatened. It’s not like the Russian economy can’t support a larger defense budget.

    I’m deeply skeptical of the claim that the F-35 is superior to the F-16 in WVR combat.

    F-35A (loaded weight) thrust-to-weight ratio: 0.87
    F-16C Block 50 (loaded weight) thrust-to-weight ratio: 1.07

    Published specs also note that with 50% fuel the respective thrust-to-weight ratios are 1.07 and 1.24 respectively. So an F-35A with half of its internal fuel has the same thrust-to-weight ratio as a fully loaded F-16C.

    F-35A (loaded weight) wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft²
    F-16C Block 50 (loaded weight): 88.3 lb/ft²

    I can’t find the published specifications for drag area, but it’s quite obvious that the F-35 has a considerably larger drag area than the F-16. And the airframe doesn’t appear to offer any advantage in body lift either. Probably the opposite is true–the F-16 offers more wing-body blending since its airframe has no compromises needed for stealth shaping.

    Maximum g-loading for both aircraft is claimed to be the same, 9 g. But there are a lot of reports of the F-16 being capable of pulling 12 g, which I’ve never heard claimed of the F-35. Since it’s a larger aircraft it’s unlikely too.

    So based on published specifications the F-16 by definition has superior acceleration, climb, and turn performance. The F-35 would only be superior in a dive since it’s heavier and has more thrust. Given that NATO air forces generally do not operate below 15,000 feet that is valuable.

    The F-35 does has a superior cannon to the F-16, though it’s still worse than what all non-American fighter aircraft offer. This continues a grand Air Force tradition of having inferior guns dating back to 1940. It might have superior situational awareness thanks to its Elbit helmet and EODAS (six distributed infrared sensors), though the F-16 has far superior visibility for the pilot from the cockpit.

    It’s also worth pointing out that in its normal “stealth” configuration the F-35 would take longer to launch its infrared missiles since they are carried internally.

    Any claims that the F-35 offers superior or even equal WVR performance to the F-16 cannot be taken seriously.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think the F-35 has a higher range despite being heavier and not carrying much more fuel, so I’m not sure the 50% fuel numbers paint an entirely accurate picture. But in any event, it can carry over twice as heavy weapons, so the big question is if we should care for the fully loaded numbers.

    The thrust of the F-35 is 1.57 times higher, while its weight carrying 50% of its fuel and the same amount of weapons (2.5 tons) as the F-16 could carry is just 1.27 times higher: that points to a better thrust-to-weight ratio.

    I’m not an aerodynamics expert, but I’ve recently seen some aerobatic performance from the F-35 which was impressive, and so I now tend to believe the F-35 marketing to a much larger extent than was the case just a few months ago.
  29. @reiner Tor
    I read recently that there was a Russian language forum where some guy (the website was apparently taken down and the guy arrested in late 2017) uploaded all (?) flight tests of the Su-57 fighter jet. Apparently by adding up the total flight hours it totaled just 1600 flight hours by late 2017, and the rate wasn't even increasing in 2016-17 (while they were increasing the fleet from five to ten - currently there are just nine or fewer flyable prototypes, because one of the early prototypes is now only used for ground testing, with many of the vital parts, like engines, removed), so the program really seemed to be stalling at that point. What I read elsewhere is that a minimal flight test program of a new fighter jet usually takes 20,000 flight hours or more - so the Su-57 is nowhere near serial production level. The minimal numbers produced (maybe one this year, another one next year...) seem to support it. They also don't yet have the new engine ready for production - despite only producing one plane per year, those are still produced with the old engine. (It's a slightly stronger version of the Su-35S engine, basically stronger only because they simply loosened temperature limitations, greatly reducing the longevity of the engine.)

    I don't think it can be considered good news that globohomo is now producing hundreds of F-35s (besides the already existing 170+ F-22s), with hundreds of thousands of flight hours accrued to it. Contrary to claims of its detractors, the F-35 is actually superior to the F-16 even in WVR combat (its aerodynamics is superior while loaded with weapons, and its engine is stronger relative to the loaded weight), even in a machine gun dogfight it is its equal. Apparently until very recently the plane's performance was limited by its software.

    Russia, get your shit together!

    I don’t know how current it is – not something I actively track – but Alexander Mercouris had a seemingly well informed article on this a couple of years ago: http://theduran.com/russias-new-su-t-50-fifth-generation-fighter-gets-new-engine-new-name/

    Incidentally, a pity that he seems to have stopped blogging.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Not very up to date:

    Borisov is supposed to have said that the Russian Aerospace Forces would initially only buy one squadron of 12 SU T50 aircraft using the current AL-41F1 engine – to be delivered apparently next year ie. in 2018
     
    As we all know, somewhat fewer (12 fewer) than the projected number (12) were delivered last year.

    earlier than expected availability of the “item 30” engine, whose development seems to have gone smoother and faster than expected.
     
    Possible, but questionable, in light of what has transpired since: one Su-57 is supposed to be produced this year, and another one next year. The idea that the new engine is going to be ready for serial production by 2025 (this is the new date, not the 2021 mentioned by Mercouris) is in any event not something to be taken seriously: something that far out is basically so far from being ready that likely no one has any idea how much time is needed to solve the numerous issues, nor how many issues it’s going to have until the projected date. It’s just a guess, or a deadline, which they are hoping to keep, not something you can rely on.

    This is consistent with the conservative Russian approach, which in contrast to the US avoids pressing into service new aircraft or weapons systems before they have been fully perfected and all the bugs in them have been ironed out.
     
    This is highly questionable. In the 1980s the Su-27 and the MiG-29 were both pressed into service with numerous issues and with some of the projected weapons not yet ready. The final version of the Su-27 was to be the Su-27M, which was renamed Su-35 in the 1990s for marketing reasons. (The current Su-35 is an improved version of this Su-27M/Su-35, but still, the current Su-35 is probably closer to what was envisioned in the early 1980s than the initial Su-27.)

    It actually makes sense to produce relatively large numbers of an imperfect new system (whether a fighter jet or a battle tank), so that you can test it on a large scale, while training lots of your pilots and service personnel for it, and you can work out the appropriate tactics etc. Also, the factory producing it is also going to accumulate production experience, so that by the time you reach the full potential, production will already be streamlined. Of course all this is only great provided you have the money. So Mercouris is just putting a spin on it.

    I don’t really like this kind of communication. I know it’s a cultural thing, but I like it when I don’t have to do lots of guesswork with these announcements, and instead they tell us the problems they have upfront. Yes, I know that the American projects are also often delayed, but the PAK FA started in 2003, and after 16 years we’re still here with a few technology demonstrators, or at best prototypes, (a true prototype would have the same engine as the serial production), compared to the delays in the F-35 (which were constantly thrashed in the press) these are significantly longer.
    , @Mikhail

    Incidentally, a pity that he seems to have stopped blogging.
     
    Offset by his videos on a regular basis at The Duran. One such example noted in this piece:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/04/10/rebuking-zakaria-and-goading-trump-the-right-way.html

    He also gets some periodic airtime at RT.
  30. @Mr McKenna
    Yeah I think you read it here somewhere, but what occurs to me is that there are a large number of 'unaccompanied' young women back in the third-world hellholes our 'migrants' come from. It's almost as if they're asking for 'sex tourism'.

    Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey does ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting
     
    In an unrelated note, does anyone here know women who aren't either doing keto or gluten-free or (most commonly) both?

    In a related note, what the evidence that keto diet does something to your benefit? Has anyone seen it improve physical or mental abilities in a RCT? Did it prevent or cure any disease?

    And if not, what does it say about people who use the K word in a non-ironic way?

    OT: I am sorry for changing names too often, but I won’t be bothered with providing personal info, and it seems that any handle I use gets registered and used by others.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13554794.2012.690421

    Keto successfully treats bipolar disorder in women.

    Follow Dennis Mangan on Twitter (@mangan150) and read his website (www.roguehealthandfitness.com).
    , @AaronB
    No physical benefits - it is cultural signalling. By doing keto you signal to others that you are interested in masculinity. You probably also lift weights. You would have liked to be a caveman.

    It is common for religious sects to have unusual or eccentric diets, and food taboos in general. Forbidding certain foods is one of the clearest ways to strengthen your identity and separate yourself from others.
    , @notanon
    (sample of one)

    fixed my sleep problems

    haven't had a cold since i started (but that's probably the eggs rather than keto per se)
    , @HammerJack
    Who were you before? I lost my credentials too but it's been months since I posted before today and I can't even remember what my handle was.

    I'm not into fad diets of any kind, though I try to moderate fat and sugar intake. But anything which might help tubby yanks lose some weight is absolutely o.k. with me.
  31. @Dacian Julien Soros bis
    In a related note, what the evidence that keto diet does something to your benefit? Has anyone seen it improve physical or mental abilities in a RCT? Did it prevent or cure any disease?

    And if not, what does it say about people who use the K word in a non-ironic way?

    OT: I am sorry for changing names too often, but I won't be bothered with providing personal info, and it seems that any handle I use gets registered and used by others.

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13554794.2012.690421

    Keto successfully treats bipolar disorder in women.

    Follow Dennis Mangan on Twitter (@mangan150) and read his website (www.roguehealthandfitness.com).

  32. @Dacian Julien Soros bis
    In a related note, what the evidence that keto diet does something to your benefit? Has anyone seen it improve physical or mental abilities in a RCT? Did it prevent or cure any disease?

    And if not, what does it say about people who use the K word in a non-ironic way?

    OT: I am sorry for changing names too often, but I won't be bothered with providing personal info, and it seems that any handle I use gets registered and used by others.

    No physical benefits – it is cultural signalling. By doing keto you signal to others that you are interested in masculinity. You probably also lift weights. You would have liked to be a caveman.

    It is common for religious sects to have unusual or eccentric diets, and food taboos in general. Forbidding certain foods is one of the clearest ways to strengthen your identity and separate yourself from others.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Keto is more associated with masculinity than other restrictive diets (e.g. vegetarianism and veganism), but I wouldn't consider it masculine signalling.

    The diet was largely popularized by Nina Teicholz after all.

    The biggest popularizer of the pseudo-keto "paleo" diet is Mark Sisson. Mark Sisson is a masculine man, but he's adept at propagandizing femoids.

    Even the CARNIVORE diet is mostly popularized by Jordan Peterson's daughter.

    I will say that women in our community do seem to struggle a lot more with avoiding carbohydrates and are always looking for excuses to add them to the diet. They're always the ones fussing around with nonsense like tapioca and arrowroot.

    Perhaps this testifies to a genuine physical need for carbohydrates in women.

    The physical benefits are substantial and well attested to in research and more importantly my ongoing n = 1 RCT.

  33. @AaronB
    No physical benefits - it is cultural signalling. By doing keto you signal to others that you are interested in masculinity. You probably also lift weights. You would have liked to be a caveman.

    It is common for religious sects to have unusual or eccentric diets, and food taboos in general. Forbidding certain foods is one of the clearest ways to strengthen your identity and separate yourself from others.

    Keto is more associated with masculinity than other restrictive diets (e.g. vegetarianism and veganism), but I wouldn’t consider it masculine signalling.

    The diet was largely popularized by Nina Teicholz after all.

    The biggest popularizer of the pseudo-keto “paleo” diet is Mark Sisson. Mark Sisson is a masculine man, but he’s adept at propagandizing femoids.

    Even the CARNIVORE diet is mostly popularized by Jordan Peterson’s daughter.

    I will say that women in our community do seem to struggle a lot more with avoiding carbohydrates and are always looking for excuses to add them to the diet. They’re always the ones fussing around with nonsense like tapioca and arrowroot.

    Perhaps this testifies to a genuine physical need for carbohydrates in women.

    The physical benefits are substantial and well attested to in research and more importantly my ongoing n = 1 RCT.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    and more importantly my ongoing n = 1 RCT.
     
    This is high quality evidence I will accept.

    I am actually going out now to buy lots of delicious, fatty beef short ribs which I will barbecue. I will dream of cavemen as I consume them.

    The past few days, not intentionally, I ate almost entirely vegetarian. Eggs were my main protein. You would be disgusted.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Men were hunters, women were gatherers. Seems there are good evolutionary reasons for keto/IMF to be relatively more adaptive for men.
    , @Curious Person

    Keto is more associated with masculinity than other restrictive diets (e.g. vegetarianism and veganism)
     
    Veganism is also closely connected to the gayest social cause (climate change activism); for instance the protestors in London have been talking about how their 'citizens' assembly' might decide we need to restrict meat consumption to reach a zero-carbon economy by whenever. They probably enjoy long-distance running too.
    , @HammerJack
    Tapioca is tasty stuff! My wife made some just yesterday. But she's a toughie...not afraid of gluten even. In our house we keep politics and food separate.
  34. @Thorfinnsson
    Keto is more associated with masculinity than other restrictive diets (e.g. vegetarianism and veganism), but I wouldn't consider it masculine signalling.

    The diet was largely popularized by Nina Teicholz after all.

    The biggest popularizer of the pseudo-keto "paleo" diet is Mark Sisson. Mark Sisson is a masculine man, but he's adept at propagandizing femoids.

    Even the CARNIVORE diet is mostly popularized by Jordan Peterson's daughter.

    I will say that women in our community do seem to struggle a lot more with avoiding carbohydrates and are always looking for excuses to add them to the diet. They're always the ones fussing around with nonsense like tapioca and arrowroot.

    Perhaps this testifies to a genuine physical need for carbohydrates in women.

    The physical benefits are substantial and well attested to in research and more importantly my ongoing n = 1 RCT.

    and more importantly my ongoing n = 1 RCT.

    This is high quality evidence I will accept.

    I am actually going out now to buy lots of delicious, fatty beef short ribs which I will barbecue. I will dream of cavemen as I consume them.

    The past few days, not intentionally, I ate almost entirely vegetarian. Eggs were my main protein. You would be disgusted.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I like eggs and vegetables.

    Eggs are a nearly perfect food from a nutritional standpoint, dirt cheap, and exceptionally versatile.

    The health benefits of vegetables are dramatically oversold, but they are tasty and almost harmless.

    Coffee and tea, the closest things to "superfoods" that actually exist, are both concentrated plant products.
    , @reiner Tor
    Eggs and veggies are good, so no harm eating those for a short while.
    , @notanon
    eggs are primo keto
  35. @Thorfinnsson
    Keto is more associated with masculinity than other restrictive diets (e.g. vegetarianism and veganism), but I wouldn't consider it masculine signalling.

    The diet was largely popularized by Nina Teicholz after all.

    The biggest popularizer of the pseudo-keto "paleo" diet is Mark Sisson. Mark Sisson is a masculine man, but he's adept at propagandizing femoids.

    Even the CARNIVORE diet is mostly popularized by Jordan Peterson's daughter.

    I will say that women in our community do seem to struggle a lot more with avoiding carbohydrates and are always looking for excuses to add them to the diet. They're always the ones fussing around with nonsense like tapioca and arrowroot.

    Perhaps this testifies to a genuine physical need for carbohydrates in women.

    The physical benefits are substantial and well attested to in research and more importantly my ongoing n = 1 RCT.

    Men were hunters, women were gatherers. Seems there are good evolutionary reasons for keto/IMF to be relatively more adaptive for men.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Yes, that's what I was thinking. For that reason I never advise pregnant women to go carnivore.

    Though there are carnivorous women who report good results. Jordan Peterson's daughter gets all the attention for it because of her famous father, but the best example I can think of is Charlene Andersen: https://meatheals.com/2018/02/04/charlene-andersen/

    https://i2.wp.com/meatheals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/charlene-andersen.jpg?w=830&ssl=1

    She's 44 years old!

    Compare to noted vegetable enthusiast Chelsea "Clinton" (her real father is former Arkansas Attorney General Webster Hubbell) at age 39:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4ddKoCWkAU8wKC.jpg

    As Twitter impresario Weihan Zhang would say, I am vomit NOT allow.
  36. @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't know how current it is - not something I actively track - but Alexander Mercouris had a seemingly well informed article on this a couple of years ago: http://theduran.com/russias-new-su-t-50-fifth-generation-fighter-gets-new-engine-new-name/

    Incidentally, a pity that he seems to have stopped blogging.

    Not very up to date:

    Borisov is supposed to have said that the Russian Aerospace Forces would initially only buy one squadron of 12 SU T50 aircraft using the current AL-41F1 engine – to be delivered apparently next year ie. in 2018

    As we all know, somewhat fewer (12 fewer) than the projected number (12) were delivered last year.

    earlier than expected availability of the “item 30” engine, whose development seems to have gone smoother and faster than expected.

    Possible, but questionable, in light of what has transpired since: one Su-57 is supposed to be produced this year, and another one next year. The idea that the new engine is going to be ready for serial production by 2025 (this is the new date, not the 2021 mentioned by Mercouris) is in any event not something to be taken seriously: something that far out is basically so far from being ready that likely no one has any idea how much time is needed to solve the numerous issues, nor how many issues it’s going to have until the projected date. It’s just a guess, or a deadline, which they are hoping to keep, not something you can rely on.

    This is consistent with the conservative Russian approach, which in contrast to the US avoids pressing into service new aircraft or weapons systems before they have been fully perfected and all the bugs in them have been ironed out.

    This is highly questionable. In the 1980s the Su-27 and the MiG-29 were both pressed into service with numerous issues and with some of the projected weapons not yet ready. The final version of the Su-27 was to be the Su-27M, which was renamed Su-35 in the 1990s for marketing reasons. (The current Su-35 is an improved version of this Su-27M/Su-35, but still, the current Su-35 is probably closer to what was envisioned in the early 1980s than the initial Su-27.)

    It actually makes sense to produce relatively large numbers of an imperfect new system (whether a fighter jet or a battle tank), so that you can test it on a large scale, while training lots of your pilots and service personnel for it, and you can work out the appropriate tactics etc. Also, the factory producing it is also going to accumulate production experience, so that by the time you reach the full potential, production will already be streamlined. Of course all this is only great provided you have the money. So Mercouris is just putting a spin on it.

    I don’t really like this kind of communication. I know it’s a cultural thing, but I like it when I don’t have to do lots of guesswork with these announcements, and instead they tell us the problems they have upfront. Yes, I know that the American projects are also often delayed, but the PAK FA started in 2003, and after 16 years we’re still here with a few technology demonstrators, or at best prototypes, (a true prototype would have the same engine as the serial production), compared to the delays in the F-35 (which were constantly thrashed in the press) these are significantly longer.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The F-35 program started in 1993.

    PAK-FA progress has been reasonable, especially in light of the limited resources allocated to the project.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Okay, thanks for the explanation. As I said I don't actively follow this, so have no strong opinion of my own.

    Speculation: Perhaps they are unwilling to commit to 5th gen mass fighter production in general - it's expensive, after all, and Russia does not, presumably, plan to fight a large-scale conventional war with the US. And by the time it comes online in enough numbers to make a difference, there's a good chance that drones will rule the skies anyway.
  37. @AaronB

    and more importantly my ongoing n = 1 RCT.
     
    This is high quality evidence I will accept.

    I am actually going out now to buy lots of delicious, fatty beef short ribs which I will barbecue. I will dream of cavemen as I consume them.

    The past few days, not intentionally, I ate almost entirely vegetarian. Eggs were my main protein. You would be disgusted.

    I like eggs and vegetables.

    Eggs are a nearly perfect food from a nutritional standpoint, dirt cheap, and exceptionally versatile.

    The health benefits of vegetables are dramatically oversold, but they are tasty and almost harmless.

    Coffee and tea, the closest things to “superfoods” that actually exist, are both concentrated plant products.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I agree with all of this.

    I like vegetables cooked in some good fat, when they are delicious, but the health benefits are definitely oversold.

    In parts of the world that still eat traditionally, few veggies are eaten I notice. Mostly meat, carbs, and fat, with some veggie garnish. This 5 servings of veggies, recently upgraded to what, 8 or 10? is insane, and I am curious as to what's really driving it. I wonder.

    Coffee and tea are both great. Didn't know they were so healthy. Good to know I drunk tons.
    , @Mikhail
    Hard boiled eggs are a good convenient food that will fill you up, but not out. The key is to put them under running cold water right after boiling, so that the shells come off easier. Hard boiled eggs also serve the purpose of better eliminating the food poisoning that has been associated with eating eggs.

    A big decaf green tea drinker myself. Two tall glasses a day. Brew it with turmeric, ginger, lemon juice and just a little sugar. I drink it cold.

  38. @Anatoly Karlin
    Men were hunters, women were gatherers. Seems there are good evolutionary reasons for keto/IMF to be relatively more adaptive for men.

    Yes, that’s what I was thinking. For that reason I never advise pregnant women to go carnivore.

    Though there are carnivorous women who report good results. Jordan Peterson’s daughter gets all the attention for it because of her famous father, but the best example I can think of is Charlene Andersen: https://meatheals.com/2018/02/04/charlene-andersen/

    She’s 44 years old!

    Compare to noted vegetable enthusiast Chelsea “Clinton” (her real father is former Arkansas Attorney General Webster Hubbell) at age 39:

    As Twitter impresario Weihan Zhang would say, I am vomit NOT allow.

    • Replies: @songbird
    I think you have to be careful with an all-meat diet. You have to eat the right animals, the right cuts of meat in the right amounts, or you will overdose on certain vitamins and minerals..

    This is a problem they come across when they try to work out the diets of neanderthals. Some previous guesses seem to be deadly, when they do the calculations on paper.

    In cannibalistic tribes, women and children were given the less desirable sweetmeats, like the brain. Consequently, women may be evolved to eat more noxious tissues than prime steak.

    , @Mr. XYZ
    Chelsea looks like a spitting image of her mother Hillary in that photo.
  39. @Thorfinnsson
    Probably the Russians aren't allocating enough money to the program. Despite tensions with America I get the impression that Russia doesn't feel its military security is seriously threatened. It's not like the Russian economy can't support a larger defense budget.

    I'm deeply skeptical of the claim that the F-35 is superior to the F-16 in WVR combat.

    F-35A (loaded weight) thrust-to-weight ratio: 0.87
    F-16C Block 50 (loaded weight) thrust-to-weight ratio: 1.07

    Published specs also note that with 50% fuel the respective thrust-to-weight ratios are 1.07 and 1.24 respectively. So an F-35A with half of its internal fuel has the same thrust-to-weight ratio as a fully loaded F-16C.

    F-35A (loaded weight) wing loading: 107.5 lb/ft²
    F-16C Block 50 (loaded weight): 88.3 lb/ft²

    I can't find the published specifications for drag area, but it's quite obvious that the F-35 has a considerably larger drag area than the F-16. And the airframe doesn't appear to offer any advantage in body lift either. Probably the opposite is true--the F-16 offers more wing-body blending since its airframe has no compromises needed for stealth shaping.

    Maximum g-loading for both aircraft is claimed to be the same, 9 g. But there are a lot of reports of the F-16 being capable of pulling 12 g, which I've never heard claimed of the F-35. Since it's a larger aircraft it's unlikely too.

    So based on published specifications the F-16 by definition has superior acceleration, climb, and turn performance. The F-35 would only be superior in a dive since it's heavier and has more thrust. Given that NATO air forces generally do not operate below 15,000 feet that is valuable.

    The F-35 does has a superior cannon to the F-16, though it's still worse than what all non-American fighter aircraft offer. This continues a grand Air Force tradition of having inferior guns dating back to 1940. It might have superior situational awareness thanks to its Elbit helmet and EODAS (six distributed infrared sensors), though the F-16 has far superior visibility for the pilot from the cockpit.

    It's also worth pointing out that in its normal "stealth" configuration the F-35 would take longer to launch its infrared missiles since they are carried internally.

    Any claims that the F-35 offers superior or even equal WVR performance to the F-16 cannot be taken seriously.

    I think the F-35 has a higher range despite being heavier and not carrying much more fuel, so I’m not sure the 50% fuel numbers paint an entirely accurate picture. But in any event, it can carry over twice as heavy weapons, so the big question is if we should care for the fully loaded numbers.

    The thrust of the F-35 is 1.57 times higher, while its weight carrying 50% of its fuel and the same amount of weapons (2.5 tons) as the F-16 could carry is just 1.27 times higher: that points to a better thrust-to-weight ratio.

    I’m not an aerodynamics expert, but I’ve recently seen some aerobatic performance from the F-35 which was impressive, and so I now tend to believe the F-35 marketing to a much larger extent than was the case just a few months ago.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    I think the F-35 has a higher range despite being heavier and not carrying much more fuel, so I’m not sure the 50% fuel numbers paint an entirely accurate picture. But in any event, it can carry over twice as heavy weapons, so the big question is if we should care for the fully loaded numbers.
     
    The F-35A can carry 18,480 pounds of internal fuel compared to 7,000 for the F-16C.

    The F135 is also a newer technology engine and thus presumably has lower thrust-specific fuel consumption compared to F110 and F100 engines (F-16 offers two engine choices unlike the F-35).


    The thrust of the F-35 is 1.57 times higher, while its weight carrying 50% of its fuel and the same amount of weapons (2.5 tons) as the F-16 could carry is just 1.27 times higher: that points to a better thrust-to-weight ratio.
     
    This is simple math using specifications available on Wikipedia.

    F-35A:

    Maximum thrust: 43,000 pound feet
    Loaded weight: 49,441 pounds

    F-16C:

    Maximum thrust: 28,600 pounds
    Loaded weight: 26,000 pounds

    Divide the first number by the second. An orangutan can see that the F-16 has a superior thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-35. This earns it the dubious distinction of being the first ever American fighter aircraft to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than its predecessor (unless you count the Super Hornet as a new fighter).

    I suppose if you really want to lawyer the issue you could cite the F-106 replacing the F-104 back when the US Air Force actually defended American airspace. But these were interceptors not intended for air combat against other fighters.

    It is possible that the F-35 has superior instantaneous acceleration to the F-16 if its engine can develop full afterburner thrust faster than the F-16. I don't know enough about jet engines to say whether that's the case.

    I’m not an aerodynamics expert, but I’ve recently seen some aerobatic performance from the F-35 which was impressive, and so I now tend to believe the F-35 marketing to a much larger extent than was the case just a few months ago.
     
    It's still a fighter aircraft so of course it can maneuver.

    Did you know that the US Navy's famous Blue Angels flight demonstration squadron once operated the F-4 Phantom II? The F-4 was infamous among fighter pilots for its poor maneuverability, which led to serious combat losses in North Vietnam against supposedly inferior Soviet fighters like the MiG-21 and even the purportedly obsolete MiG-17 subsonic fighter.

    A (relatively) small aircraft with a high thrust-to-weight ratio and (relatively) low wing-loading in the hands of skilled pilot will look very impressive in aerobatic maneuvers even if it's inferior in aerobatic performance compared to other fighters.

    If you want to see some bad maneuvers look up some Youtube videos of B-52 aerobatic flights. The geniuses in the Strategic Air Command felt left out by the fighter jocks in the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds having all the fun and came up with the brilliant idea of performing aerobatic maneuvers with heavy bombers and tanker aircraft at airshows. The flight team was disbanded after too many planes crashed and killed their crews.
  40. I’d like to wish a very happy 130th birthday to the still-living-in-Buenos Aires Adolf Hitler.

    The H-man deserves much better defenders than the moronic “revisionist” commenters of the Unz Review who come out of the woodwork every time Ron Unz makes a groundbreaking historical discovery.

  41. @Thorfinnsson
    I like eggs and vegetables.

    Eggs are a nearly perfect food from a nutritional standpoint, dirt cheap, and exceptionally versatile.

    The health benefits of vegetables are dramatically oversold, but they are tasty and almost harmless.

    Coffee and tea, the closest things to "superfoods" that actually exist, are both concentrated plant products.

    I agree with all of this.

    I like vegetables cooked in some good fat, when they are delicious, but the health benefits are definitely oversold.

    In parts of the world that still eat traditionally, few veggies are eaten I notice. Mostly meat, carbs, and fat, with some veggie garnish. This 5 servings of veggies, recently upgraded to what, 8 or 10? is insane, and I am curious as to what’s really driving it. I wonder.

    Coffee and tea are both great. Didn’t know they were so healthy. Good to know I drunk tons.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I think the vegetable nonsense stems from three factors:

    • In the past fresh vegetables were farm more available in the countryside than the cities, and rural dwellers were healthier than urban dwellers until the late 20th century

    • Ancel Keys, the lipid hypothesis, the cholesterol delusion, etc. leading to the demonization of animal fat and meat generally

    • Marketing by BIG VEGETABLE

    It's completely absurd from an evolutionary or historical point of view. Humans are apex predators and evolved eating large quantities of meat. And historically fruits and vegetables were not even available most of the time.

    The meat industry did once market meat as being healthy, but this was abandoned after public health authorities started demonizing meat. The only health claims you see about meat now is nonsense about "balanced diets" (everyone who recommends "moderation" should be shot) and ostensibly "healthier" lower in fat stemming from the destruction of traditional porcine breeds and the substitution of completely inferior chicken for aristocratic beef (the true king of the table).

    https://farm1.static.flickr.com/99/300547668_5b8366a587_o.jpg

  42. @reiner Tor
    Not very up to date:

    Borisov is supposed to have said that the Russian Aerospace Forces would initially only buy one squadron of 12 SU T50 aircraft using the current AL-41F1 engine – to be delivered apparently next year ie. in 2018
     
    As we all know, somewhat fewer (12 fewer) than the projected number (12) were delivered last year.

    earlier than expected availability of the “item 30” engine, whose development seems to have gone smoother and faster than expected.
     
    Possible, but questionable, in light of what has transpired since: one Su-57 is supposed to be produced this year, and another one next year. The idea that the new engine is going to be ready for serial production by 2025 (this is the new date, not the 2021 mentioned by Mercouris) is in any event not something to be taken seriously: something that far out is basically so far from being ready that likely no one has any idea how much time is needed to solve the numerous issues, nor how many issues it’s going to have until the projected date. It’s just a guess, or a deadline, which they are hoping to keep, not something you can rely on.

    This is consistent with the conservative Russian approach, which in contrast to the US avoids pressing into service new aircraft or weapons systems before they have been fully perfected and all the bugs in them have been ironed out.
     
    This is highly questionable. In the 1980s the Su-27 and the MiG-29 were both pressed into service with numerous issues and with some of the projected weapons not yet ready. The final version of the Su-27 was to be the Su-27M, which was renamed Su-35 in the 1990s for marketing reasons. (The current Su-35 is an improved version of this Su-27M/Su-35, but still, the current Su-35 is probably closer to what was envisioned in the early 1980s than the initial Su-27.)

    It actually makes sense to produce relatively large numbers of an imperfect new system (whether a fighter jet or a battle tank), so that you can test it on a large scale, while training lots of your pilots and service personnel for it, and you can work out the appropriate tactics etc. Also, the factory producing it is also going to accumulate production experience, so that by the time you reach the full potential, production will already be streamlined. Of course all this is only great provided you have the money. So Mercouris is just putting a spin on it.

    I don’t really like this kind of communication. I know it’s a cultural thing, but I like it when I don’t have to do lots of guesswork with these announcements, and instead they tell us the problems they have upfront. Yes, I know that the American projects are also often delayed, but the PAK FA started in 2003, and after 16 years we’re still here with a few technology demonstrators, or at best prototypes, (a true prototype would have the same engine as the serial production), compared to the delays in the F-35 (which were constantly thrashed in the press) these are significantly longer.

    The F-35 program started in 1993.

    PAK-FA progress has been reasonable, especially in light of the limited resources allocated to the project.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The F-35's technology demonstrator, the X-35 first flew in 2001, 8 years after the start of the program. That'd be December 2010 for the Su-57. The first F-35 up to serial production standards flew in late 2006, so only five years after the first flight of the X-35. Yet the Russians, over eight years after the first flight of their technology demonstrator, have still failed to create a real working prototype of the final version of their plane with the same engine, avionics, weapons, everything.

    It's also worth noting that the F-35 program was way more complex, because it was the simultaneous development of three planes, and the program had to take into account the requirements of all three. (I agree with you that it probably won't be able to replace the A-10 Warthog, but those requirements probably slowed down production still further.) Its software was also complex to an unprecedented degree, which is obviously not the case with the Su-57, and this caused most of the problems with it.
  43. @AaronB

    and more importantly my ongoing n = 1 RCT.
     
    This is high quality evidence I will accept.

    I am actually going out now to buy lots of delicious, fatty beef short ribs which I will barbecue. I will dream of cavemen as I consume them.

    The past few days, not intentionally, I ate almost entirely vegetarian. Eggs were my main protein. You would be disgusted.

    Eggs and veggies are good, so no harm eating those for a short while.

  44. @reiner Tor
    Not very up to date:

    Borisov is supposed to have said that the Russian Aerospace Forces would initially only buy one squadron of 12 SU T50 aircraft using the current AL-41F1 engine – to be delivered apparently next year ie. in 2018
     
    As we all know, somewhat fewer (12 fewer) than the projected number (12) were delivered last year.

    earlier than expected availability of the “item 30” engine, whose development seems to have gone smoother and faster than expected.
     
    Possible, but questionable, in light of what has transpired since: one Su-57 is supposed to be produced this year, and another one next year. The idea that the new engine is going to be ready for serial production by 2025 (this is the new date, not the 2021 mentioned by Mercouris) is in any event not something to be taken seriously: something that far out is basically so far from being ready that likely no one has any idea how much time is needed to solve the numerous issues, nor how many issues it’s going to have until the projected date. It’s just a guess, or a deadline, which they are hoping to keep, not something you can rely on.

    This is consistent with the conservative Russian approach, which in contrast to the US avoids pressing into service new aircraft or weapons systems before they have been fully perfected and all the bugs in them have been ironed out.
     
    This is highly questionable. In the 1980s the Su-27 and the MiG-29 were both pressed into service with numerous issues and with some of the projected weapons not yet ready. The final version of the Su-27 was to be the Su-27M, which was renamed Su-35 in the 1990s for marketing reasons. (The current Su-35 is an improved version of this Su-27M/Su-35, but still, the current Su-35 is probably closer to what was envisioned in the early 1980s than the initial Su-27.)

    It actually makes sense to produce relatively large numbers of an imperfect new system (whether a fighter jet or a battle tank), so that you can test it on a large scale, while training lots of your pilots and service personnel for it, and you can work out the appropriate tactics etc. Also, the factory producing it is also going to accumulate production experience, so that by the time you reach the full potential, production will already be streamlined. Of course all this is only great provided you have the money. So Mercouris is just putting a spin on it.

    I don’t really like this kind of communication. I know it’s a cultural thing, but I like it when I don’t have to do lots of guesswork with these announcements, and instead they tell us the problems they have upfront. Yes, I know that the American projects are also often delayed, but the PAK FA started in 2003, and after 16 years we’re still here with a few technology demonstrators, or at best prototypes, (a true prototype would have the same engine as the serial production), compared to the delays in the F-35 (which were constantly thrashed in the press) these are significantly longer.

    Okay, thanks for the explanation. As I said I don’t actively follow this, so have no strong opinion of my own.

    Speculation: Perhaps they are unwilling to commit to 5th gen mass fighter production in general – it’s expensive, after all, and Russia does not, presumably, plan to fight a large-scale conventional war with the US. And by the time it comes online in enough numbers to make a difference, there’s a good chance that drones will rule the skies anyway.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Robert Gates might be to "blame".

    Thanks to his very big-brained decision to cancel F-22 production (using the logic that obviously Russians and Chinese just aren't smart enough to develop fifth generation fighters) the Chair Force only has 187 operational F-22s. Prior to that the Chair Force planned to ultimately have 750 F-22s.

    The PAK-FA was specifically developed to hunt and defeat the F-22. Without large numbers of F-22s in service, there's no particular reason to field large numbers of Su-57s. Gen 4++ Russian fighters like the Su-35 and MiG-35 are adequate against evolved American teen-series fighters and Eurocanards.

    I don't imagine the RuAF considers the F-35 a serious threat except to the existence NATO airpower.

    Another possibility is that the RuAF isn't very impressed with the Su-57. It's obviously not as stealthy as the F-22 after all. Supposedly that was a deliberate design choice, but it might have more to do with Russia's limited resources (particularly early in the 20th century when Russia was much poorer).

    The real problem with the glacial pace of the Su-57 program might be ceding the commercial market for high-end stealth fighters to the Chinese.

    , @reiner Tor

    by the time it comes online in enough numbers to make a difference, there’s a good chance that drones will rule the skies anyway
     
    I don't think it's so easy to just skip a full generation. For example those supersonic drones (I think they are currently as slow as Great War biplanes...) will also need to be even more stealthy than current planes, and how can they be if you have skipped decades of experience designing, producing and operating such planes? It takes lots of money and time to catch up with this kind of experience.

    But anyway, as I wrote, currently existing drones are so slow (and require human control from nearby anyway), that it's very likely that the next generation of aircraft will still be flown by human pilots.
  45. @reiner Tor
    I think the F-35 has a higher range despite being heavier and not carrying much more fuel, so I’m not sure the 50% fuel numbers paint an entirely accurate picture. But in any event, it can carry over twice as heavy weapons, so the big question is if we should care for the fully loaded numbers.

    The thrust of the F-35 is 1.57 times higher, while its weight carrying 50% of its fuel and the same amount of weapons (2.5 tons) as the F-16 could carry is just 1.27 times higher: that points to a better thrust-to-weight ratio.

    I’m not an aerodynamics expert, but I’ve recently seen some aerobatic performance from the F-35 which was impressive, and so I now tend to believe the F-35 marketing to a much larger extent than was the case just a few months ago.

    I think the F-35 has a higher range despite being heavier and not carrying much more fuel, so I’m not sure the 50% fuel numbers paint an entirely accurate picture. But in any event, it can carry over twice as heavy weapons, so the big question is if we should care for the fully loaded numbers.

    The F-35A can carry 18,480 pounds of internal fuel compared to 7,000 for the F-16C.

    The F135 is also a newer technology engine and thus presumably has lower thrust-specific fuel consumption compared to F110 and F100 engines (F-16 offers two engine choices unlike the F-35).

    The thrust of the F-35 is 1.57 times higher, while its weight carrying 50% of its fuel and the same amount of weapons (2.5 tons) as the F-16 could carry is just 1.27 times higher: that points to a better thrust-to-weight ratio.

    This is simple math using specifications available on Wikipedia.

    F-35A:

    Maximum thrust: 43,000 pound feet
    Loaded weight: 49,441 pounds

    F-16C:

    Maximum thrust: 28,600 pounds
    Loaded weight: 26,000 pounds

    Divide the first number by the second. An orangutan can see that the F-16 has a superior thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-35. This earns it the dubious distinction of being the first ever American fighter aircraft to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than its predecessor (unless you count the Super Hornet as a new fighter).

    I suppose if you really want to lawyer the issue you could cite the F-106 replacing the F-104 back when the US Air Force actually defended American airspace. But these were interceptors not intended for air combat against other fighters.

    It is possible that the F-35 has superior instantaneous acceleration to the F-16 if its engine can develop full afterburner thrust faster than the F-16. I don’t know enough about jet engines to say whether that’s the case.

    I’m not an aerodynamics expert, but I’ve recently seen some aerobatic performance from the F-35 which was impressive, and so I now tend to believe the F-35 marketing to a much larger extent than was the case just a few months ago.

    It’s still a fighter aircraft so of course it can maneuver.

    Did you know that the US Navy’s famous Blue Angels flight demonstration squadron once operated the F-4 Phantom II? The F-4 was infamous among fighter pilots for its poor maneuverability, which led to serious combat losses in North Vietnam against supposedly inferior Soviet fighters like the MiG-21 and even the purportedly obsolete MiG-17 subsonic fighter.

    A (relatively) small aircraft with a high thrust-to-weight ratio and (relatively) low wing-loading in the hands of skilled pilot will look very impressive in aerobatic maneuvers even if it’s inferior in aerobatic performance compared to other fighters.

    If you want to see some bad maneuvers look up some Youtube videos of B-52 aerobatic flights. The geniuses in the Strategic Air Command felt left out by the fighter jocks in the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds having all the fun and came up with the brilliant idea of performing aerobatic maneuvers with heavy bombers and tanker aircraft at airshows. The flight team was disbanded after too many planes crashed and killed their crews.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    My point was that the F-35 loaded weight is way higher than its empty weight: almost 20,000 lbs higher. Whereas with the F-16 you have a difference of just less than 8000 lbs between the empty and loaded weight. I assumed that the difference is the amount of weapons it can carry.

    I don’t think it’s a fair comparison to compare the F-35 carrying weapons weighing 19,400 lbs against an F-16 carrying just 7,600 lbs of weapons. A fair comparison would be them carrying a similar amount of weapons. Or, since both are American fighters using the same weapons, they should carry the exact same weapons.

    I also think that the F-35 with its internal weapons bay is probably experiencing less aerodynamic drag than the F-16, despite being larger. Or at worst it’s the same.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Fun with BUFFs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQa4PpIkOZU
  46. @AaronB
    I agree with all of this.

    I like vegetables cooked in some good fat, when they are delicious, but the health benefits are definitely oversold.

    In parts of the world that still eat traditionally, few veggies are eaten I notice. Mostly meat, carbs, and fat, with some veggie garnish. This 5 servings of veggies, recently upgraded to what, 8 or 10? is insane, and I am curious as to what's really driving it. I wonder.

    Coffee and tea are both great. Didn't know they were so healthy. Good to know I drunk tons.

    I think the vegetable nonsense stems from three factors:

    • In the past fresh vegetables were farm more available in the countryside than the cities, and rural dwellers were healthier than urban dwellers until the late 20th century

    • Ancel Keys, the lipid hypothesis, the cholesterol delusion, etc. leading to the demonization of animal fat and meat generally

    • Marketing by BIG VEGETABLE

    It’s completely absurd from an evolutionary or historical point of view. Humans are apex predators and evolved eating large quantities of meat. And historically fruits and vegetables were not even available most of the time.

    The meat industry did once market meat as being healthy, but this was abandoned after public health authorities started demonizing meat. The only health claims you see about meat now is nonsense about “balanced diets” (everyone who recommends “moderation” should be shot) and ostensibly “healthier” lower in fat stemming from the destruction of traditional porcine breeds and the substitution of completely inferior chicken for aristocratic beef (the true king of the table).

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I have no doubt meat is healthy.....in moderation :)

    Seriously, though, in traditional cultures, restrictions on meat eating are lifted if required for health. This seems to me to implicitly recognize that meat can be uniquely healthy, and that invalids might even need its life giving properties.

    Yes, another super annoying thing is that the less tasty meats are being pushed. Lean meat, my ass. In Asia, they don't even eat chicken breast, but only the fatty, tasty, thigh meat. And fatty pork belly is maybe their favourite pork cut.

    But yes, nothing compares to beef, the king of meat. Although lamb can be great.

    I really think behind all this lurks the Puritan instinct - it seems the more delicious the food, the worse they "find" it is for you. Were gonna end up eating only bitter vegetables.

    None of this no sense exists in normal countries like France or Japan. You eat delicious food...but in moderation :)

    What I like about keto is that it is at least a step away from Puritanism and back towards deliciousness. A half way compromise at least. Which makes it different from most American diets.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Beef is only king where men are not able to eat wild-harvested venison, especially elk.

    Wild elk is the greatest of foods.

    However, your criticism of modern, inferior porcine breeds is 100% accurate. My Pennsylvania was a happier place when we had more HOGS, rather than weak little pigs.

  47. @Anatoly Karlin
    Okay, thanks for the explanation. As I said I don't actively follow this, so have no strong opinion of my own.

    Speculation: Perhaps they are unwilling to commit to 5th gen mass fighter production in general - it's expensive, after all, and Russia does not, presumably, plan to fight a large-scale conventional war with the US. And by the time it comes online in enough numbers to make a difference, there's a good chance that drones will rule the skies anyway.

    Robert Gates might be to “blame”.

    Thanks to his very big-brained decision to cancel F-22 production (using the logic that obviously Russians and Chinese just aren’t smart enough to develop fifth generation fighters) the Chair Force only has 187 operational F-22s. Prior to that the Chair Force planned to ultimately have 750 F-22s.

    The PAK-FA was specifically developed to hunt and defeat the F-22. Without large numbers of F-22s in service, there’s no particular reason to field large numbers of Su-57s. Gen 4++ Russian fighters like the Su-35 and MiG-35 are adequate against evolved American teen-series fighters and Eurocanards.

    I don’t imagine the RuAF considers the F-35 a serious threat except to the existence NATO airpower.

    Another possibility is that the RuAF isn’t very impressed with the Su-57. It’s obviously not as stealthy as the F-22 after all. Supposedly that was a deliberate design choice, but it might have more to do with Russia’s limited resources (particularly early in the 20th century when Russia was much poorer).

    The real problem with the glacial pace of the Su-57 program might be ceding the commercial market for high-end stealth fighters to the Chinese.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I don’t think the Russians should be just sitting on less than a dozen not-even-test-flown Su-57s, even if the only threats to their air force were the 170+ F-22 fighters. After all, I noticed that 170>>>10, and a point could be made that with the exception of a few hundred modern fighters (Su-27SM2/3, Su-30, Su-35, maybe some MiGs like the modernized versions of the MiG-29, including the basically nonexistent MiG-35, in some roles the modernized versions of the MiG-31), their warplanes are no match for the most modern Western (especially American) fighters. Certainly not in numbers: NATO has air superiority even without the US Air Force.

    Another point (and this is important regarding the F-35, too), is that people often underestimate the soft qualities of weapons. American weapons usually provide better situational awareness, and it’s especially true of the F-35. The F-35 pilot will see such a complex picture (receiving data from multiple sources), and the computer will highlight for him the most relevant data, that even if it had inferior performance otherwise, it’d be a formidable opponent. Better kinematic performance or better weapons are worthless without knowing where the enemy is, which of the enemies pose the largest danger, etc.

    So I think the Russians are not very smart if they seriously believe this.
  48. @Thorfinnsson

    I think the F-35 has a higher range despite being heavier and not carrying much more fuel, so I’m not sure the 50% fuel numbers paint an entirely accurate picture. But in any event, it can carry over twice as heavy weapons, so the big question is if we should care for the fully loaded numbers.
     
    The F-35A can carry 18,480 pounds of internal fuel compared to 7,000 for the F-16C.

    The F135 is also a newer technology engine and thus presumably has lower thrust-specific fuel consumption compared to F110 and F100 engines (F-16 offers two engine choices unlike the F-35).


    The thrust of the F-35 is 1.57 times higher, while its weight carrying 50% of its fuel and the same amount of weapons (2.5 tons) as the F-16 could carry is just 1.27 times higher: that points to a better thrust-to-weight ratio.
     
    This is simple math using specifications available on Wikipedia.

    F-35A:

    Maximum thrust: 43,000 pound feet
    Loaded weight: 49,441 pounds

    F-16C:

    Maximum thrust: 28,600 pounds
    Loaded weight: 26,000 pounds

    Divide the first number by the second. An orangutan can see that the F-16 has a superior thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-35. This earns it the dubious distinction of being the first ever American fighter aircraft to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than its predecessor (unless you count the Super Hornet as a new fighter).

    I suppose if you really want to lawyer the issue you could cite the F-106 replacing the F-104 back when the US Air Force actually defended American airspace. But these were interceptors not intended for air combat against other fighters.

    It is possible that the F-35 has superior instantaneous acceleration to the F-16 if its engine can develop full afterburner thrust faster than the F-16. I don't know enough about jet engines to say whether that's the case.

    I’m not an aerodynamics expert, but I’ve recently seen some aerobatic performance from the F-35 which was impressive, and so I now tend to believe the F-35 marketing to a much larger extent than was the case just a few months ago.
     
    It's still a fighter aircraft so of course it can maneuver.

    Did you know that the US Navy's famous Blue Angels flight demonstration squadron once operated the F-4 Phantom II? The F-4 was infamous among fighter pilots for its poor maneuverability, which led to serious combat losses in North Vietnam against supposedly inferior Soviet fighters like the MiG-21 and even the purportedly obsolete MiG-17 subsonic fighter.

    A (relatively) small aircraft with a high thrust-to-weight ratio and (relatively) low wing-loading in the hands of skilled pilot will look very impressive in aerobatic maneuvers even if it's inferior in aerobatic performance compared to other fighters.

    If you want to see some bad maneuvers look up some Youtube videos of B-52 aerobatic flights. The geniuses in the Strategic Air Command felt left out by the fighter jocks in the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds having all the fun and came up with the brilliant idea of performing aerobatic maneuvers with heavy bombers and tanker aircraft at airshows. The flight team was disbanded after too many planes crashed and killed their crews.

    My point was that the F-35 loaded weight is way higher than its empty weight: almost 20,000 lbs higher. Whereas with the F-16 you have a difference of just less than 8000 lbs between the empty and loaded weight. I assumed that the difference is the amount of weapons it can carry.

    I don’t think it’s a fair comparison to compare the F-35 carrying weapons weighing 19,400 lbs against an F-16 carrying just 7,600 lbs of weapons. A fair comparison would be them carrying a similar amount of weapons. Or, since both are American fighters using the same weapons, they should carry the exact same weapons.

    I also think that the F-35 with its internal weapons bay is probably experiencing less aerodynamic drag than the F-16, despite being larger. Or at worst it’s the same.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The F-22 has a much higher loaded weight than the F-35 and also has a much higher thrust-to-weight ratio.

    Loaded weight is 64,480 pounds and maximum thrust 70,000 pounds. Thrust-to-weight ratio is 1.09, which is slightly higher than the aircraft it was supposed to replace (the F-15C, ratio 1.07).

    It's true that the F-35A is a larger aircraft and can carry more weapons, but it was supposed to be a low end fighter for the Air Force and Navy per the Hi-Lo fighter mix that emerged in the 1970s. So it's entirely fair to compare the F-35A to the F-16. Likewise comparing the F-35C to the F/A-18 Hornet is appropriate.

    The program has other similarities to the F-16. It's going to be produced in large numbers, it's going to be the main American fighter for NATO, and there's a lot of foreign involvement in production. F-16s are assembled in a number of foreign countries, and there's even a Japanese F-16 derivative.

    It was also supposed to be inexpensive like the F-16, which unfortunately didn't happen.

    Should also be pointed out that carrying more weapons than an F-16 requires external carriage of stores, which eliminates the frontal stealth which is the raison d'etre for the F-35 design.

    An F-35A carrying two 2,000 pound bombs internally probably has less drag than an F-16 with the same warload. But I bet the F-16 has a smaller drag area in an air-to-air loadout because A2A missiles have a very small drag area.

    The F-35A is also supposed to replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II which is dubious to say the least.
  49. @Thorfinnsson
    I think the vegetable nonsense stems from three factors:

    • In the past fresh vegetables were farm more available in the countryside than the cities, and rural dwellers were healthier than urban dwellers until the late 20th century

    • Ancel Keys, the lipid hypothesis, the cholesterol delusion, etc. leading to the demonization of animal fat and meat generally

    • Marketing by BIG VEGETABLE

    It's completely absurd from an evolutionary or historical point of view. Humans are apex predators and evolved eating large quantities of meat. And historically fruits and vegetables were not even available most of the time.

    The meat industry did once market meat as being healthy, but this was abandoned after public health authorities started demonizing meat. The only health claims you see about meat now is nonsense about "balanced diets" (everyone who recommends "moderation" should be shot) and ostensibly "healthier" lower in fat stemming from the destruction of traditional porcine breeds and the substitution of completely inferior chicken for aristocratic beef (the true king of the table).

    https://farm1.static.flickr.com/99/300547668_5b8366a587_o.jpg

    I have no doubt meat is healthy…..in moderation 🙂

    Seriously, though, in traditional cultures, restrictions on meat eating are lifted if required for health. This seems to me to implicitly recognize that meat can be uniquely healthy, and that invalids might even need its life giving properties.

    Yes, another super annoying thing is that the less tasty meats are being pushed. Lean meat, my ass. In Asia, they don’t even eat chicken breast, but only the fatty, tasty, thigh meat. And fatty pork belly is maybe their favourite pork cut.

    But yes, nothing compares to beef, the king of meat. Although lamb can be great.

    I really think behind all this lurks the Puritan instinct – it seems the more delicious the food, the worse they “find” it is for you. Were gonna end up eating only bitter vegetables.

    None of this no sense exists in normal countries like France or Japan. You eat delicious food…but in moderation 🙂

    What I like about keto is that it is at least a step away from Puritanism and back towards deliciousness. A half way compromise at least. Which makes it different from most American diets.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I don't know of any medical condition which is eliminated by consumption of vegetables other than scurvy. And curiously, scurvy doesn't develop in carnivores. This is odd because Vitamin C, which is not produced by the human body, is thought to be essential to the development of scar tissue.

    There is actually vitamin C in meat, but not much in muscle meats. And yet Joe and Charlene Andersen have been eating nothing but ribeye for more than twenty years. The carnivore popularizer Dr. Shawn Baker, another ribeye eater, has theorized that glucose and vitamin C compete for the same pathways because they are molecularly similar. Eliminate glucose from the diet and the body's vitamin C requirements decline. Plausible.

    But there are many medical conditions which are improved by eating meat. It's also telling that in India, the world's most pro-vegetarian traditional culture, the one caste that eats a lot of meat is the WARRIOR caste.

    You're definitely onto something with puritanism, and it has an old pedigree in North America. The inventor of Roman Meal, the Canadian physician Robert Jackson, was a health crank who wrote an absurd book claiming that eating a diet of bad-tasting, badly prepared whole grains (like, to take a perfectly random example, Roman Meal) could lead to eternal life. He routinely exaggerated his real age by decades to maintain this fiction.

    France and Japan can thank their excellent cuisines from saving themselves from postwar dietary rubbish. It would be an insult to their national reputations to adopt the diets recommended by vinegar drinking puritan scolds like the American Medical Association. I always get a chuckle about physicians discussing the French "Paradox" which has been a great mystery to them now for decades.

    Puritanism is also at work in the ridiculous hysteria directed against tobacco. Most smokers never develop lung cancers, yet tobacco is subject to extreme demonization and persecution. I like to joke that smokers are America's most persecuted minority.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    But yes, nothing compares to beef, the king of meat.
     
    "I can't understand them people down below, eating on beef when they could be eating elk." - Bear Claw Chris Lapp, 'Jeremiah Johnson'
  50. @Thorfinnsson
    Keto is more associated with masculinity than other restrictive diets (e.g. vegetarianism and veganism), but I wouldn't consider it masculine signalling.

    The diet was largely popularized by Nina Teicholz after all.

    The biggest popularizer of the pseudo-keto "paleo" diet is Mark Sisson. Mark Sisson is a masculine man, but he's adept at propagandizing femoids.

    Even the CARNIVORE diet is mostly popularized by Jordan Peterson's daughter.

    I will say that women in our community do seem to struggle a lot more with avoiding carbohydrates and are always looking for excuses to add them to the diet. They're always the ones fussing around with nonsense like tapioca and arrowroot.

    Perhaps this testifies to a genuine physical need for carbohydrates in women.

    The physical benefits are substantial and well attested to in research and more importantly my ongoing n = 1 RCT.

    Keto is more associated with masculinity than other restrictive diets (e.g. vegetarianism and veganism)

    Veganism is also closely connected to the gayest social cause (climate change activism); for instance the protestors in London have been talking about how their ‘citizens’ assembly’ might decide we need to restrict meat consumption to reach a zero-carbon economy by whenever. They probably enjoy long-distance running too.

  51. @Thorfinnsson
    Robert Gates might be to "blame".

    Thanks to his very big-brained decision to cancel F-22 production (using the logic that obviously Russians and Chinese just aren't smart enough to develop fifth generation fighters) the Chair Force only has 187 operational F-22s. Prior to that the Chair Force planned to ultimately have 750 F-22s.

    The PAK-FA was specifically developed to hunt and defeat the F-22. Without large numbers of F-22s in service, there's no particular reason to field large numbers of Su-57s. Gen 4++ Russian fighters like the Su-35 and MiG-35 are adequate against evolved American teen-series fighters and Eurocanards.

    I don't imagine the RuAF considers the F-35 a serious threat except to the existence NATO airpower.

    Another possibility is that the RuAF isn't very impressed with the Su-57. It's obviously not as stealthy as the F-22 after all. Supposedly that was a deliberate design choice, but it might have more to do with Russia's limited resources (particularly early in the 20th century when Russia was much poorer).

    The real problem with the glacial pace of the Su-57 program might be ceding the commercial market for high-end stealth fighters to the Chinese.

    I don’t think the Russians should be just sitting on less than a dozen not-even-test-flown Su-57s, even if the only threats to their air force were the 170+ F-22 fighters. After all, I noticed that 170>>>10, and a point could be made that with the exception of a few hundred modern fighters (Su-27SM2/3, Su-30, Su-35, maybe some MiGs like the modernized versions of the MiG-29, including the basically nonexistent MiG-35, in some roles the modernized versions of the MiG-31), their warplanes are no match for the most modern Western (especially American) fighters. Certainly not in numbers: NATO has air superiority even without the US Air Force.

    Another point (and this is important regarding the F-35, too), is that people often underestimate the soft qualities of weapons. American weapons usually provide better situational awareness, and it’s especially true of the F-35. The F-35 pilot will see such a complex picture (receiving data from multiple sources), and the computer will highlight for him the most relevant data, that even if it had inferior performance otherwise, it’d be a formidable opponent. Better kinematic performance or better weapons are worthless without knowing where the enemy is, which of the enemies pose the largest danger, etc.

    So I think the Russians are not very smart if they seriously believe this.

    • Replies: @Kimppis
    Good discussion about the Su-57 and F-35.

    Firstly: I'm not an aerodynamics expert either. And while the Su-57 program has certainly not gone 100% according to plan, those forum posts are probably BS for the most part.

    The truth regarding the F-35 is probably somewhere between the two extremes as well, as usual. On the one hand, it's most likely not this perfect symbol of AngloZionist Empire's decay, nor is the F-35 literally inferior to Sopwith Camel from WW1 (as suggested by alt-media commenters), but on the other hand, it's not the master of all trades either.

    I'll just quote Spacebattles.com user TR1, who seems to be a real expert on the Russian military. This was posted in 2019:

    That is...completely false. Literally a narrative invented by crappy English language blogs, who purposefully misread Bosirov's words as "we cant fund the Su-57" when in reality all he said is "current planes are good so we have no reason to rush the development schedule".

    There is zero indication the program is starved for money. It is in full development, they are just waiting on izd 30 to be ready to launch production en-masse. If we compare timelines even to Su-27, Su-57 is not really late or super behin schedule.
    They would not be testing it alongside Ohotnik [the drone] if they were barely able to keep the program afloat.
    As for exports, it is Rostec basically saying "yeah I think they will offer it for export soon", which means nothing for actual export contracts right now (Knaaz is still making making a production line) and says nothing about a desperation to sell. It also certainly does not mean they will sell to anyone.

    The Pak-fa has always been a priority program, and the Russian defense budget is still robust.
    People just looked at GPV 2011-2020 and thought the "60 PAK-FA" in it actually meant contracts, when really it was a vague force intention that had little to do with Sukohi's actual pace.
    From the start of the program I figured there would not be appreciable numbers until post 2020, and that is exactly how it is coming together.
     
    When it comes to vs. NATO comparisons, Russia's very modern IADS must be taken into account as well. Not to mention that by the end 2020 Russia will technically have more than a "few" hundred modern fighters. My calculations, roughly:

    12 (or is it 2?) Su-57, 100 Su-35, 160 Su-30, 100+ upgraded Su-27, 60 (?) MiG 29K/SMT/MiG-35, 120 MiG-31BM, 150 Su-34. That's more than 700 aircraft, and it doesn't include some MiG-31Ks or Su-33s (to be upgraded).

    Even without the IADS, that would clearly be the 3rd strongest air force in the world. Russophile triggering: "3RD STRONGEST!?!? IT'S ONLY THE AMERICANS AND US! IT'S FOREVER 2008 IN THE CHINESE AIR FORCE! MUH ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES." (Anyone who gets the reference, that debate between Karlin and Martyanov was hilarious, I only read it a few days ago.) Now to be fair, one could still plausibly rank Russia above China in 2020, after all Russia's IADS and bomber fleet remain superior, but the overall conclusion would objectively be far from obvious.

    I do agree that they better get their shit together with the Su-57 procurement by the mid-2020s, but overall you can't ask for much more than that, all things considered.
  52. @Thorfinnsson
    Yes, that's what I was thinking. For that reason I never advise pregnant women to go carnivore.

    Though there are carnivorous women who report good results. Jordan Peterson's daughter gets all the attention for it because of her famous father, but the best example I can think of is Charlene Andersen: https://meatheals.com/2018/02/04/charlene-andersen/

    https://i2.wp.com/meatheals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/charlene-andersen.jpg?w=830&ssl=1

    She's 44 years old!

    Compare to noted vegetable enthusiast Chelsea "Clinton" (her real father is former Arkansas Attorney General Webster Hubbell) at age 39:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4ddKoCWkAU8wKC.jpg

    As Twitter impresario Weihan Zhang would say, I am vomit NOT allow.

    I think you have to be careful with an all-meat diet. You have to eat the right animals, the right cuts of meat in the right amounts, or you will overdose on certain vitamins and minerals..

    This is a problem they come across when they try to work out the diets of neanderthals. Some previous guesses seem to be deadly, when they do the calculations on paper.

    In cannibalistic tribes, women and children were given the less desirable sweetmeats, like the brain. Consequently, women may be evolved to eat more noxious tissues than prime steak.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Ruminant meat and seafood are the most nutritious muscle meats.

    Organ meat is the most nutritious, but there you truly do need to exercise caution as you say lest you suffer retinol poisoning.
  53. @reiner Tor
    My point was that the F-35 loaded weight is way higher than its empty weight: almost 20,000 lbs higher. Whereas with the F-16 you have a difference of just less than 8000 lbs between the empty and loaded weight. I assumed that the difference is the amount of weapons it can carry.

    I don’t think it’s a fair comparison to compare the F-35 carrying weapons weighing 19,400 lbs against an F-16 carrying just 7,600 lbs of weapons. A fair comparison would be them carrying a similar amount of weapons. Or, since both are American fighters using the same weapons, they should carry the exact same weapons.

    I also think that the F-35 with its internal weapons bay is probably experiencing less aerodynamic drag than the F-16, despite being larger. Or at worst it’s the same.

    The F-22 has a much higher loaded weight than the F-35 and also has a much higher thrust-to-weight ratio.

    Loaded weight is 64,480 pounds and maximum thrust 70,000 pounds. Thrust-to-weight ratio is 1.09, which is slightly higher than the aircraft it was supposed to replace (the F-15C, ratio 1.07).

    It’s true that the F-35A is a larger aircraft and can carry more weapons, but it was supposed to be a low end fighter for the Air Force and Navy per the Hi-Lo fighter mix that emerged in the 1970s. So it’s entirely fair to compare the F-35A to the F-16. Likewise comparing the F-35C to the F/A-18 Hornet is appropriate.

    The program has other similarities to the F-16. It’s going to be produced in large numbers, it’s going to be the main American fighter for NATO, and there’s a lot of foreign involvement in production. F-16s are assembled in a number of foreign countries, and there’s even a Japanese F-16 derivative.

    It was also supposed to be inexpensive like the F-16, which unfortunately didn’t happen.

    Should also be pointed out that carrying more weapons than an F-16 requires external carriage of stores, which eliminates the frontal stealth which is the raison d’etre for the F-35 design.

    An F-35A carrying two 2,000 pound bombs internally probably has less drag than an F-16 with the same warload. But I bet the F-16 has a smaller drag area in an air-to-air loadout because A2A missiles have a very small drag area.

    The F-35A is also supposed to replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II which is dubious to say the least.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I'm not sure my point came across.

    The F-35 is theoretically capable of carrying almost triple the weapons load as the F-16. This is only fully used in strike missions with zero danger of enemy air force or air defense activity. This is a big advantage for countries which often fight third world tribesmen like Afghanis (the US is one such country), because it's much cheaper to deliver the same amount of weapons in one mission than it is to carry them in three separate missions.

    In an air to air fighter configuration the F-35 carries exactly the same amount of weapons as the F-16. I assert that for this reason, when comparing dogfighting abilities, the fully loaded number is only somewhat meaningful for the F-16 (because it's fully loaded already in an air to air configuration), but totally meaningless for the F-35. This number punishes the F-35 for its extra ability to cheaply bomb Afghani or Somali tribesmen, when in fact it's irrelevant to dogfighting.

    Now in a dogfight the most realistic is actually a lightly loaded number for the F-16 with just a couple short range missiles (theoretically the BVR missiles had already been shot), but dogfighting could come as a surprise while carrying BVR weapons (maybe against enemy stealth planes), so maybe the full air to air configuration makes sense.

    I don't understand why this simple point (that they should be compared with the same weapons, and not punish the F-35 for its extra ability to cheaply bomb third worlders) is so difficult to accept.

    By the way the celebrated Chinese 5th gen fighters have zero dogfighting abilities, because they don't even have machine guns.

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/problem-chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-doesnt-have-gun-40402

  54. @Thorfinnsson
    Good Friday isn't a big deal in America.

    If there's no Happy Easter tweet tomorrow you might be onto something.

    Let alone a Happy Palm Sunday for those observing on the old calendar.

  55. @AaronB
    I have no doubt meat is healthy.....in moderation :)

    Seriously, though, in traditional cultures, restrictions on meat eating are lifted if required for health. This seems to me to implicitly recognize that meat can be uniquely healthy, and that invalids might even need its life giving properties.

    Yes, another super annoying thing is that the less tasty meats are being pushed. Lean meat, my ass. In Asia, they don't even eat chicken breast, but only the fatty, tasty, thigh meat. And fatty pork belly is maybe their favourite pork cut.

    But yes, nothing compares to beef, the king of meat. Although lamb can be great.

    I really think behind all this lurks the Puritan instinct - it seems the more delicious the food, the worse they "find" it is for you. Were gonna end up eating only bitter vegetables.

    None of this no sense exists in normal countries like France or Japan. You eat delicious food...but in moderation :)

    What I like about keto is that it is at least a step away from Puritanism and back towards deliciousness. A half way compromise at least. Which makes it different from most American diets.

    I don’t know of any medical condition which is eliminated by consumption of vegetables other than scurvy. And curiously, scurvy doesn’t develop in carnivores. This is odd because Vitamin C, which is not produced by the human body, is thought to be essential to the development of scar tissue.

    There is actually vitamin C in meat, but not much in muscle meats. And yet Joe and Charlene Andersen have been eating nothing but ribeye for more than twenty years. The carnivore popularizer Dr. Shawn Baker, another ribeye eater, has theorized that glucose and vitamin C compete for the same pathways because they are molecularly similar. Eliminate glucose from the diet and the body’s vitamin C requirements decline. Plausible.

    But there are many medical conditions which are improved by eating meat. It’s also telling that in India, the world’s most pro-vegetarian traditional culture, the one caste that eats a lot of meat is the WARRIOR caste.

    You’re definitely onto something with puritanism, and it has an old pedigree in North America. The inventor of Roman Meal, the Canadian physician Robert Jackson, was a health crank who wrote an absurd book claiming that eating a diet of bad-tasting, badly prepared whole grains (like, to take a perfectly random example, Roman Meal) could lead to eternal life. He routinely exaggerated his real age by decades to maintain this fiction.

    France and Japan can thank their excellent cuisines from saving themselves from postwar dietary rubbish. It would be an insult to their national reputations to adopt the diets recommended by vinegar drinking puritan scolds like the American Medical Association. I always get a chuckle about physicians discussing the French “Paradox” which has been a great mystery to them now for decades.

    Puritanism is also at work in the ridiculous hysteria directed against tobacco. Most smokers never develop lung cancers, yet tobacco is subject to extreme demonization and persecution. I like to joke that smokers are America’s most persecuted minority.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Most smokers never develop lung cancers, yet tobacco is subject to extreme demonization and persecution. I like to joke that smokers are America’s most persecuted minority.
     
    But most cases of lung cancer are the result of smoking. Now, I don't think that the occasional cigar or bowl of aromatic tobaccos is a great health risk, but it's the incessant cigarette smoking patterns developed in the early-mid part of the 20th century that caused the necessary uproar. I remember my father who religiously smoked 3 packs of camel straights every day for decades. This habit screwed up his blood circulation and caused some serious problems in his legs. I also strongly suspect that his smoking contributed greatly to him having several cardiac arrests. He's lucky that he gave it all up in his forties, whereas he wouldn't have made it to his fifties. Deep inhalation of tobacco is bad for the heart.

    AK: Could you please include sentence-ending periods *within* the blockquote tags? Thanks.
  56. @Anatoly Karlin
    I don't know how current it is - not something I actively track - but Alexander Mercouris had a seemingly well informed article on this a couple of years ago: http://theduran.com/russias-new-su-t-50-fifth-generation-fighter-gets-new-engine-new-name/

    Incidentally, a pity that he seems to have stopped blogging.

    Incidentally, a pity that he seems to have stopped blogging.

    Offset by his videos on a regular basis at The Duran. One such example noted in this piece:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/04/10/rebuking-zakaria-and-goading-trump-the-right-way.html

    He also gets some periodic airtime at RT.

  57. @songbird
    I think you have to be careful with an all-meat diet. You have to eat the right animals, the right cuts of meat in the right amounts, or you will overdose on certain vitamins and minerals..

    This is a problem they come across when they try to work out the diets of neanderthals. Some previous guesses seem to be deadly, when they do the calculations on paper.

    In cannibalistic tribes, women and children were given the less desirable sweetmeats, like the brain. Consequently, women may be evolved to eat more noxious tissues than prime steak.

    Ruminant meat and seafood are the most nutritious muscle meats.

    Organ meat is the most nutritious, but there you truly do need to exercise caution as you say lest you suffer retinol poisoning.

  58. @Thorfinnsson
    I like eggs and vegetables.

    Eggs are a nearly perfect food from a nutritional standpoint, dirt cheap, and exceptionally versatile.

    The health benefits of vegetables are dramatically oversold, but they are tasty and almost harmless.

    Coffee and tea, the closest things to "superfoods" that actually exist, are both concentrated plant products.

    Hard boiled eggs are a good convenient food that will fill you up, but not out. The key is to put them under running cold water right after boiling, so that the shells come off easier. Hard boiled eggs also serve the purpose of better eliminating the food poisoning that has been associated with eating eggs.

    A big decaf green tea drinker myself. Two tall glasses a day. Brew it with turmeric, ginger, lemon juice and just a little sugar. I drink it cold.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    You can buy peeled hard boiled eggs in the grocery store now. There are ten packs of Eggland's Best peeled hard boiled eggs at my local Kroger. Very convenient if you're a big consumer of hard boiled eggs.

    https://www.egglandsbest.com/product/hard-cooked-peeled-eggs/
  59. @Mikhail
    Hard boiled eggs are a good convenient food that will fill you up, but not out. The key is to put them under running cold water right after boiling, so that the shells come off easier. Hard boiled eggs also serve the purpose of better eliminating the food poisoning that has been associated with eating eggs.

    A big decaf green tea drinker myself. Two tall glasses a day. Brew it with turmeric, ginger, lemon juice and just a little sugar. I drink it cold.

    You can buy peeled hard boiled eggs in the grocery store now. There are ten packs of Eggland’s Best peeled hard boiled eggs at my local Kroger. Very convenient if you’re a big consumer of hard boiled eggs.

    https://www.egglandsbest.com/product/hard-cooked-peeled-eggs/

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I wish my local Perekrestok carried them. I am too lazy to boil them for 15 mins when I can instead fry them in 2 mins in my beef bacon fat.
    , @Mikhail
    Thanks for the follow-up. I'm aware of that option.

    Boiling eggs isn't as bad as preparing rice the traditional way, which is why I do the boil in the bag route, which I've been told isn't the healthier route.
  60. @reiner Tor
    I read recently that there was a Russian language forum where some guy (the website was apparently taken down and the guy arrested in late 2017) uploaded all (?) flight tests of the Su-57 fighter jet. Apparently by adding up the total flight hours it totaled just 1600 flight hours by late 2017, and the rate wasn't even increasing in 2016-17 (while they were increasing the fleet from five to ten - currently there are just nine or fewer flyable prototypes, because one of the early prototypes is now only used for ground testing, with many of the vital parts, like engines, removed), so the program really seemed to be stalling at that point. What I read elsewhere is that a minimal flight test program of a new fighter jet usually takes 20,000 flight hours or more - so the Su-57 is nowhere near serial production level. The minimal numbers produced (maybe one this year, another one next year...) seem to support it. They also don't yet have the new engine ready for production - despite only producing one plane per year, those are still produced with the old engine. (It's a slightly stronger version of the Su-35S engine, basically stronger only because they simply loosened temperature limitations, greatly reducing the longevity of the engine.)

    I don't think it can be considered good news that globohomo is now producing hundreds of F-35s (besides the already existing 170+ F-22s), with hundreds of thousands of flight hours accrued to it. Contrary to claims of its detractors, the F-35 is actually superior to the F-16 even in WVR combat (its aerodynamics is superior while loaded with weapons, and its engine is stronger relative to the loaded weight), even in a machine gun dogfight it is its equal. Apparently until very recently the plane's performance was limited by its software.

    Russia, get your shit together!

    Situation of the Su-57 program, is that they are possibly waiting for completion of work on new type 30 engines, and these engines will be available from 2023-2025.

    In the intervening time, they are beginning serial production slowly – they have ordered 2 planes to be purchased to 2020.

    Beyond these public facts – it just is interpretation. It’s possible everything is going fine, and they are just going slowly until the engines are ready. It’s also possible they are only ordering such low numbers, because they are becoming more interested in developing the 6th generation.

    I think I remember there were some vague suggestion of early research into the 6th generation, when I watched a television interview with the program head. (But this was last year, when I was answering the same question from you before).

    Anyway, the air force is being modernized in a steady way, with production of the Su-35 at around 1 plane every 5 weeks.

    As for the F-35. It is 40 years since the F-16, so it would unlikely the new plane is not an improvement over a previous generation introduced many decades earlier.

    They are recently installing the software upgrade in F-35, which will unlock more of its capability. For example, F-35 were software limited until this year to 7gs. And with the next block of software, they are being unlocked, to operate up to 9gs.

    One disadvantage, relative to Su-57, will be lack of thrust-vectoring in the F-35. However, the need for thrust-vectoring, and low-speed supermaneuverability, may also be reduced by introduction of greater “off-boresight missiles”, compared to the 1980s.

    To copypaste my earlier comment below:

    I watched a documentary last year about the Eurofighter vs MiG-29.

    In the documentary, the pilot explains the importance of supermaneuverability at low speed, and consequent superiority of MiG-29.

    At 9:30 – 11:30 in the documentary, pilot explains what was the importance of these maneuvers – angular maneuvering was essential for missiles to target the opponent.

    New planes and missiles since the 1990s have more “high off-boresight” capacity, allowing missiles to target at wider angles (reducing the amount of angular turn required to target the opponent), so low-speed supermaneuverability may have become less important than in the 1980s.

    Still from the aesthetic viewpoint, there is no American equivalent.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Obviously the technology of the F-35 is much more advanced than the F-16.

    But that does not mean it is a superior dogfighter.

    The F-35 has compromised aerodynamics, weight, and cockpit visibility owing to the VTOL requirements requested by the Marine Corps and Royal Navy. The "stealth" requirement also contributes to these problems, though at least stealth is a defensible design priority since it offers benefits.

    Or it would if the F-35 were actually stealthy...


    The improved performance of A2A missiles actually increases the importance of maneuvering performance in fighters, because maneuvering is the last line of defense in defeating an incoming A2A missile shot.

    If A2A missiles ever get sufficiently good that they cannot be defeated by maneuvering at all, then it will be time to abandon fighter aircraft entirely. The best choice would simply be modified wide body airliners carrying hundreds or even thousands of missiles.

    I'm of the opinion that the F-35 should simply be canceled. In the short-term F-22 production should be restarted (and exported) and more teen series fighters ordered. Perhaps we can even order Eurocanards. After all, the Chair Force did once order the English Electric Canberra bomber (produced in America as the Martin B-57 Canberra). The P-51 Mustang also famously had a license-built Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 engine because General Motors refused to develop an appropriate supercharged variant of its Allison V-12.

    The Dassault Rafale would be an excellent fighter for both the Navy and the Air Force. The Rafale could also be re-engined with a superior American engine like the General Electric F414. The Marines for their part don't need fighters and need to be told to go pound sand. The Royal Navy of course should put catapults in their stupid Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers since VTOL aircraft are dogshit.

    Long-term entirely new fighters are needed of course. In the intermediate term the teen series fighters could be evolved like what Sukhoi has done with the Su-27. The Japanese have an evolved F-16 variant, and there was an interesting F-16 experiment in the 80s called the F-16XL.
  61. @Thorfinnsson
    You can buy peeled hard boiled eggs in the grocery store now. There are ten packs of Eggland's Best peeled hard boiled eggs at my local Kroger. Very convenient if you're a big consumer of hard boiled eggs.

    https://www.egglandsbest.com/product/hard-cooked-peeled-eggs/

    I wish my local Perekrestok carried them. I am too lazy to boil them for 15 mins when I can instead fry them in 2 mins in my beef bacon fat.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Hard boiled egg is the least tasty variant. The best is soft boiled, then fried, poached, scrambled... hard boiled is only good if you want to put it on a sandwich. Or if you overcooked a soft boiled one.
    , @Bassarab
    My man, 15 min of boiling is overcooking it.

    The key to hard-boiled eggs is to get them out just as the yolk is soldifying or just after that. This way the yolk is still a little gooey and a dark orange. They will have a much better flavor than overcooked ones which become a light yellow and are quite crumbly.

    For me it takes about 4.5 or 5 min to get them this way, but you may have to experiment & adjust according to egg size.

  62. @Anatoly Karlin
    I wish my local Perekrestok carried them. I am too lazy to boil them for 15 mins when I can instead fry them in 2 mins in my beef bacon fat.

    Hard boiled egg is the least tasty variant. The best is soft boiled, then fried, poached, scrambled… hard boiled is only good if you want to put it on a sandwich. Or if you overcooked a soft boiled one.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I agree, but they're useful on the go.

    Some gas stations also sell peeled hard boiled eggs in America, though the packages usually only have two eggs.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Easily solved by dipping in deviled sauce (perfectly keto), or even something really lazy like sprikling with salt and black pepper (will make most anything perfectly edible).
  63. I gots a вопрос for you Russians: I’m visiting Russia this summer and am hoping to get a non ZOGed notebook. Can anyone confirm that the Intel Managment Engine is disabled on Russian machines? I’ve seen this claimed but never anything authoritative. Alternatively, what’s the state of Russian’s domestic CPUs? Can one buy a laptop with a Baikal or Elbrus CPU that can run normal GNU/Linux? Please respond.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    No idea, sorry. I am a PC person, esp. after the misadventures with my laptop. The Lenovo Thinkpad E480 I got does have an Intel Management Engine.
    , @Dmitry

    Alternatively, what’s the state of Russian’s domestic CPUs? Can one buy a laptop with a Baikal or Elbrus CPU that can run normal GNU/Linux? Please respond.
     
    These are commercial/industrial products, that are produced for businesses.

    With a little work, you could use it for a desktop to run Linux products - , it's just MIPS processors.

    From an import substitution point of view, they are not extremely local. Architecture are designs they license from MIPS Technologies, and they are produced in Taiwan.

  64. @Dmitry
    Situation of the Su-57 program, is that they are possibly waiting for completion of work on new type 30 engines, and these engines will be available from 2023-2025.

    In the intervening time, they are beginning serial production slowly - they have ordered 2 planes to be purchased to 2020.

    Beyond these public facts - it just is interpretation. It's possible everything is going fine, and they are just going slowly until the engines are ready. It's also possible they are only ordering such low numbers, because they are becoming more interested in developing the 6th generation.

    I think I remember there were some vague suggestion of early research into the 6th generation, when I watched a television interview with the program head. (But this was last year, when I was answering the same question from you before).

    Anyway, the air force is being modernized in a steady way, with production of the Su-35 at around 1 plane every 5 weeks.

    -

    As for the F-35. It is 40 years since the F-16, so it would unlikely the new plane is not an improvement over a previous generation introduced many decades earlier.

    They are recently installing the software upgrade in F-35, which will unlock more of its capability. For example, F-35 were software limited until this year to 7gs. And with the next block of software, they are being unlocked, to operate up to 9gs.

    One disadvantage, relative to Su-57, will be lack of thrust-vectoring in the F-35. However, the need for thrust-vectoring, and low-speed supermaneuverability, may also be reduced by introduction of greater "off-boresight missiles", compared to the 1980s.

    To copypaste my earlier comment below:

    I watched a documentary last year about the Eurofighter vs MiG-29.

    In the documentary, the pilot explains the importance of supermaneuverability at low speed, and consequent superiority of MiG-29.

    At 9:30 – 11:30 in the documentary, pilot explains what was the importance of these maneuvers – angular maneuvering was essential for missiles to target the opponent.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B932cUZLKzg

    New planes and missiles since the 1990s have more “high off-boresight" capacity, allowing missiles to target at wider angles (reducing the amount of angular turn required to target the opponent), so low-speed supermaneuverability may have become less important than in the 1980s.

    Still from the aesthetic viewpoint, there is no American equivalent.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZquLvrj9GI

    Obviously the technology of the F-35 is much more advanced than the F-16.

    But that does not mean it is a superior dogfighter.

    The F-35 has compromised aerodynamics, weight, and cockpit visibility owing to the VTOL requirements requested by the Marine Corps and Royal Navy. The “stealth” requirement also contributes to these problems, though at least stealth is a defensible design priority since it offers benefits.

    Or it would if the F-35 were actually stealthy…

    The improved performance of A2A missiles actually increases the importance of maneuvering performance in fighters, because maneuvering is the last line of defense in defeating an incoming A2A missile shot.

    If A2A missiles ever get sufficiently good that they cannot be defeated by maneuvering at all, then it will be time to abandon fighter aircraft entirely. The best choice would simply be modified wide body airliners carrying hundreds or even thousands of missiles.

    I’m of the opinion that the F-35 should simply be canceled. In the short-term F-22 production should be restarted (and exported) and more teen series fighters ordered. Perhaps we can even order Eurocanards. After all, the Chair Force did once order the English Electric Canberra bomber (produced in America as the Martin B-57 Canberra). The P-51 Mustang also famously had a license-built Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 engine because General Motors refused to develop an appropriate supercharged variant of its Allison V-12.

    The Dassault Rafale would be an excellent fighter for both the Navy and the Air Force. The Rafale could also be re-engined with a superior American engine like the General Electric F414. The Marines for their part don’t need fighters and need to be told to go pound sand. The Royal Navy of course should put catapults in their stupid Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers since VTOL aircraft are dogshit.

    Long-term entirely new fighters are needed of course. In the intermediate term the teen series fighters could be evolved like what Sukhoi has done with the Su-27. The Japanese have an evolved F-16 variant, and there was an interesting F-16 experiment in the 80s called the F-16XL.

    • Replies: @Boswald Bollocksworth
    Without being a pilot or an engineer I want to have some humility evaluating the F-35 question. From what I can see, it is the disaster many claim. Here's how I arrive at this:

    1. Pierre Sprey makes what sounds like a good argument, in this debate, the USAF pilot he argues with resorts to marketing talking points and emotional arguments. Sprey uses only technical arguments. This means there are no good answers to Sprey's points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pgiq-TlmSo

    2. The Russians aren't too worried about it. Russia has the SU 57 project, but they are taking their time. I wonder if the SU 57 isn't more an effort to understand the properties of a stealthy, internal weapons bay fighter, in order to develop asymmetrical responses to it.

    3. The Turks would rather have S-400s than F-35s. Turkey has a modern air force, they certainly can evaluate these planes. They've concluded the S-400 is more important for them than the F-35

    4. The USAF is buying modernized F-15s and the F-21 (sooped up F-16) project, on offer to India, might also be an indication that Lockheed sees a potential market for an upgraded F-16 in other countries.

    F-35 is a plane designed by committee to show off technology and run up big bills. Its main advantage is its supposed stealth and information sharing across planes. As soon as non-gay countries figure out how to reliably see it on radar (and maybe they have already) the F-35 becomes merely a slow jet with stumpy wings, high maintenance needs and small payload. In the chaos of war against a competent opponent, all this PR spin about the benefits of sharing info might be out the window.

    Soft American pilots will be shitting their pants and wishing they were at a winebar with their henpecking wives the moment they start losing planes to cheap Russian and Chinese made SAMs in the event of a dust up. The future belongs to drones, SAMs and computer controlled AAA.

    , @Dmitry

    maneuvering is the last line of defense
     
    The reason for low-speed supermaneuverability is to be able to target opposing plane, while maneuvering. It's this superior ability to change the angle of the plane at low speed, is why NATO was so scared of the MiG-29 (and later designs like the Ss-35 have amazing capacities in this area). .

    For a maneuver to avoid missiles, plane needs to turn fast - in which case, I have read, they are limited by the pilot's resistance to g forces, more than a mechanical limitation. This is a limit at 9g, when pilot's can reach without losing consciousness.


    Or it would if the F-35 were actually stealthy…

     

    I can't find much information on the topic? They argue here from a visual analysis:

    they also confirm that the F-35 RCS is really
    low, at least as far as the fuselage is concerned. Especially in the X-band, the
    calculated (average) RCS is even lower than the one revealed by USAF and the
    decrease in detection range with respect to the “standard target” is dramatic. For
    example, the APG68 of the F-16 is expected to “see” the F-35 at a distance of
    roughly 5 NM.

     

    http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf
  65. @reiner Tor
    Hard boiled egg is the least tasty variant. The best is soft boiled, then fried, poached, scrambled... hard boiled is only good if you want to put it on a sandwich. Or if you overcooked a soft boiled one.

    I agree, but they’re useful on the go.

    Some gas stations also sell peeled hard boiled eggs in America, though the packages usually only have two eggs.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    though the packages usually only have two eggs.
     
    I'm curious to know how many eggs to you normally eat per day, per week? I know that eating eggs is very good for you, but don't know whether there's really any ceiling on the amount recommended? BTW, I love eggs, just about any way I get them, and my friends say that my 'omelettes' (modified Denver) are a big hit. With hard boiled eggs, if I have the time, I try and make an egg salad with plenty of onions thrown into the mix and some jalapeno too (also, no complaints). :-)
  66. If you want Mercouris content, you can listen to the Duran youtube videos. He does them with Kristoforu and sometimes Peter Lavell a few times a week.

  67. @reiner Tor
    Hard boiled egg is the least tasty variant. The best is soft boiled, then fried, poached, scrambled... hard boiled is only good if you want to put it on a sandwich. Or if you overcooked a soft boiled one.

    Easily solved by dipping in deviled sauce (perfectly keto), or even something really lazy like sprikling with salt and black pepper (will make most anything perfectly edible).

  68. @Boswald Bollocksworth
    I gots a вопрос for you Russians: I’m visiting Russia this summer and am hoping to get a non ZOGed notebook. Can anyone confirm that the Intel Managment Engine is disabled on Russian machines? I’ve seen this claimed but never anything authoritative. Alternatively, what’s the state of Russian’s domestic CPUs? Can one buy a laptop with a Baikal or Elbrus CPU that can run normal GNU/Linux? Please respond.

    No idea, sorry. I am a PC person, esp. after the misadventures with my laptop. The Lenovo Thinkpad E480 I got does have an Intel Management Engine.

  69. @Thorfinnsson
    Obviously the technology of the F-35 is much more advanced than the F-16.

    But that does not mean it is a superior dogfighter.

    The F-35 has compromised aerodynamics, weight, and cockpit visibility owing to the VTOL requirements requested by the Marine Corps and Royal Navy. The "stealth" requirement also contributes to these problems, though at least stealth is a defensible design priority since it offers benefits.

    Or it would if the F-35 were actually stealthy...


    The improved performance of A2A missiles actually increases the importance of maneuvering performance in fighters, because maneuvering is the last line of defense in defeating an incoming A2A missile shot.

    If A2A missiles ever get sufficiently good that they cannot be defeated by maneuvering at all, then it will be time to abandon fighter aircraft entirely. The best choice would simply be modified wide body airliners carrying hundreds or even thousands of missiles.

    I'm of the opinion that the F-35 should simply be canceled. In the short-term F-22 production should be restarted (and exported) and more teen series fighters ordered. Perhaps we can even order Eurocanards. After all, the Chair Force did once order the English Electric Canberra bomber (produced in America as the Martin B-57 Canberra). The P-51 Mustang also famously had a license-built Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 engine because General Motors refused to develop an appropriate supercharged variant of its Allison V-12.

    The Dassault Rafale would be an excellent fighter for both the Navy and the Air Force. The Rafale could also be re-engined with a superior American engine like the General Electric F414. The Marines for their part don't need fighters and need to be told to go pound sand. The Royal Navy of course should put catapults in their stupid Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers since VTOL aircraft are dogshit.

    Long-term entirely new fighters are needed of course. In the intermediate term the teen series fighters could be evolved like what Sukhoi has done with the Su-27. The Japanese have an evolved F-16 variant, and there was an interesting F-16 experiment in the 80s called the F-16XL.

    Without being a pilot or an engineer I want to have some humility evaluating the F-35 question. From what I can see, it is the disaster many claim. Here’s how I arrive at this:

    1. Pierre Sprey makes what sounds like a good argument, in this debate, the USAF pilot he argues with resorts to marketing talking points and emotional arguments. Sprey uses only technical arguments. This means there are no good answers to Sprey’s points.

    2. The Russians aren’t too worried about it. Russia has the SU 57 project, but they are taking their time. I wonder if the SU 57 isn’t more an effort to understand the properties of a stealthy, internal weapons bay fighter, in order to develop asymmetrical responses to it.

    3. The Turks would rather have S-400s than F-35s. Turkey has a modern air force, they certainly can evaluate these planes. They’ve concluded the S-400 is more important for them than the F-35

    4. The USAF is buying modernized F-15s and the F-21 (sooped up F-16) project, on offer to India, might also be an indication that Lockheed sees a potential market for an upgraded F-16 in other countries.

    F-35 is a plane designed by committee to show off technology and run up big bills. Its main advantage is its supposed stealth and information sharing across planes. As soon as non-gay countries figure out how to reliably see it on radar (and maybe they have already) the F-35 becomes merely a slow jet with stumpy wings, high maintenance needs and small payload. In the chaos of war against a competent opponent, all this PR spin about the benefits of sharing info might be out the window.

    Soft American pilots will be shitting their pants and wishing they were at a winebar with their henpecking wives the moment they start losing planes to cheap Russian and Chinese made SAMs in the event of a dust up. The future belongs to drones, SAMs and computer controlled AAA.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Sprey has the advantage of debating a moron. It's worth noting that his opponent is a retired Lieutenant Colonel who retired after twenty-three years of service.

    Twenty years of service is when you become eligible for the gold-plated US military pension.

    The next upgrade comes with thirty years of service.

    Retiring at 23 years as a Lieutenant Colonel, an officer rank which almost anyone can attain, strongly suggests he was passed over twice for promotion to full bird Colonel and thus cashiered from the service.

    Not hard to see why since he can't argue...at all. He argued against dog fights and even...wing loading. And of course he tried to hide behind his uniform which military dweebs love to do. It's their version of, "Are you a DOCTOR????!"

    Sprey has many good ideas and arguments, but he's something of a charlatan. He genuinely thinks BVR combat is completely useless and that fighters shouldn't even be designed for it. Sprey has suggested that America's primary fighter should not have a radar. He also claims the Browning M2 .50 caliber machine gun is still the best A2A weapon ever fielded (it wasn't even the best A2A weapon, or even best heavy machine gun, of WW2).

    See Fred Reed on this: https://fredoneverything.org/the-fighter-mafia-of-odle-oops-and-error/

    No one can accuse me of being an F-35 apologist, but it isn't as bad as Sprey and those of his ilk claim. Its WVR performance is almost certainly worse than any of the premier Gen 4 fighters (US teen series, Eurocanards, Su-27 family, MiG-29 family), but it's still good. Better than the F-4 for instance, which is still in service in some countries. And it is almost certainly the best BVR fighter of its size class in the world (or will be soon).

    The F-35 is costly, but America is a rich country as are our allies. The latest production contract for the F-35A drops the unit price to $80m. This is only $10m more than the Super Hornet (granted, this is a navalized aircraft and the F-35C will cost more than the F-35A). That's also a lower price than the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon.

    The Su-57 is quite clearly designed to hunt F-22 Raptors. That's why it's designed for super maneuverability and has L-band cheek radars. Probably the Russians also intend to use it for differential training so "legacy" fighter pilots get an idea of how to fight stealth fighters, but the Su-57 is less stealthy than the F-22. On the other hand it may be around as stealthy than the F-35, which makes it useful for training against the F-35 in BVR combat.
    , @reiner Tor

    Soft American pilots will be shitting their pants and wishing they were at a winebar with their henpecking wives the moment they start losing planes to cheap Russian and Chinese made SAMs in the event of a dust up.
     
    American pilots have on average still more flight hours under their belts than Russian (though maybe not Chinese?) pilots, so I don't think this is more than just wishful thinking on the part of someone who dislikes the Globohomo Empire and wishes that it was weak.

    The future belongs to drones, SAMs and computer controlled AAA.
     
    The F-35 is the most heavily computerized airplane to date. For a long time it was extremely difficult to fix its software because of this. Full computer control will be a still way harder nut to crack. And it's not like Russia is at the cutting edge of drone development either. Regarding SAMs, I'm still somewhat underwhelmed by their performance to date. Though obviously we haven't seen the most modern SAMs operated by the most competent personnel against the most modern aircraft operated by equally competent personnel, so we don't know.
  70. @Thorfinnsson
    I agree, but they're useful on the go.

    Some gas stations also sell peeled hard boiled eggs in America, though the packages usually only have two eggs.

    though the packages usually only have two eggs.

    I’m curious to know how many eggs to you normally eat per day, per week? I know that eating eggs is very good for you, but don’t know whether there’s really any ceiling on the amount recommended? BTW, I love eggs, just about any way I get them, and my friends say that my ‘omelettes’ (modified Denver) are a big hit. With hard boiled eggs, if I have the time, I try and make an egg salad with plenty of onions thrown into the mix and some jalapeno too (also, no complaints). 🙂

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Are the extra $2-$3 bucks more per carton of eggs for 'organic eggs' really worth it? I'm sure that you have a well reasoned opinion about this...
    , @Thorfinnsson
    I have about two dozen eggs a week. I don't think there's any reason to limit egg consumption.

    On egg salad watch out for the mayo. Unfortunately it's probably made with "vegetable" oil.
  71. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey does ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting Maybe that’s why he dropped the SPL C as a partner?

    i was wondering that – testosterone gone up maybe.

    More rhetoric, or are we again trending towards wars for freedumb (and flagging approval ratings)?

    i think they’re trying to get things in place for an attack hence
    – crushing the shia along the coast beforehand to stop suicide attacks on oil tankers
    – trying to get control of venezuela’s oil so they can pump more if middle east supplies are disrupted
    – not pulling out of syria/afghan
    – getting Trump leashed (personally believe Mueller will have got blackmail dirt on Trump).

    i don’t know if it will get as far as an actual attack on Iran but i no longer think it matters – i think the shenanigans that will be involved in preparing for an attack will likely lead to some kind of military or economic catastrophe anyway.

  72. @Mr. Hack

    though the packages usually only have two eggs.
     
    I'm curious to know how many eggs to you normally eat per day, per week? I know that eating eggs is very good for you, but don't know whether there's really any ceiling on the amount recommended? BTW, I love eggs, just about any way I get them, and my friends say that my 'omelettes' (modified Denver) are a big hit. With hard boiled eggs, if I have the time, I try and make an egg salad with plenty of onions thrown into the mix and some jalapeno too (also, no complaints). :-)

    Are the extra $2-$3 bucks more per carton of eggs for ‘organic eggs’ really worth it? I’m sure that you have a well reasoned opinion about this…

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The nutritional composition of eggs is unfortunately impacted by what chickens eat.

    If you're looking for healthier eggs what you're after isn't organic eggs per se, but rather pastured eggs.

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/pastured-vs-omega-3-vs-conventional-eggs#section3

    https://i0.wp.com/www.healthline.com/hlcmsresource/images/AN_images/HL128080-graph-01.jpg?h=191
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, they're totally worth it: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/animals/

    FWIW, there are some good selfish arguments for the latter. For instance, where I live, free range eggs cost 50% more than eggs from battery raised chickens. However, free range eggs have 2-3x the vitamin content of the latter, so opting for them might be a good deal anyway.
     
    Thanks to Thorfinnsson for hunting down that chart. I remember seeing it somewhere (Sisson?) but couldn't find it for that post.

    I also agree with him on not limiting egg consumption. Dietary cholestorol (main boogeyman for eggs) has zilch to do with bodily cholesterol.
    , @songbird
    The whole "organic" concept including "free range" is just a gimmick that preys on liberal sensibilities, to increase profit. The whole world would starve, if it had to eat everything "organic."

    I have had fresh eggs. They look slightly different - the yolk is more orange - but taste exactly the same, just as do the eggs of other bird species.

    Two things to keep in mind with "free-range": 1.) it is often just a label that they put on the outside of chicken warehouses. 2.) the practice is objectively evil.

    Why point #2? Well, it is simple - you will be the cause of the next super-flu pandemic, easily surpassing the kill count of the most venerated communist dictators, like Stalin and Mao. The 1918 outbreak killed 100+ million, and the world is much more connected now.

    Free-range chickens can interact with other animals like pigs, until they get their flu strains evolve to acquire the right H and N proteins for maximum killing-power. This is not a problem for warehoused chickens.
  73. @Mr. Hack

    though the packages usually only have two eggs.
     
    I'm curious to know how many eggs to you normally eat per day, per week? I know that eating eggs is very good for you, but don't know whether there's really any ceiling on the amount recommended? BTW, I love eggs, just about any way I get them, and my friends say that my 'omelettes' (modified Denver) are a big hit. With hard boiled eggs, if I have the time, I try and make an egg salad with plenty of onions thrown into the mix and some jalapeno too (also, no complaints). :-)

    I have about two dozen eggs a week. I don’t think there’s any reason to limit egg consumption.

    On egg salad watch out for the mayo. Unfortunately it’s probably made with “vegetable” oil.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I try to cut down on the 'mayo' (actually miracle whip, please forgive me, you're probably a purist) by substituting sour cream. Perhaps, a two to one ratio. The onions and jalapeno help all around with the flavoring, as does a pinch of salt and black pepper. To make it taste even more exotic, sometimes I throw in a small spoonful of Turmeric.

    But I can see that there's really a big difference in nutritional value between the caged and free range chicken eggs! I'm sure that you're not getting the free range ones at the gas station, but how about at home?...Thanks for the chart.

  74. @Mr. Hack
    Are the extra $2-$3 bucks more per carton of eggs for 'organic eggs' really worth it? I'm sure that you have a well reasoned opinion about this...

    The nutritional composition of eggs is unfortunately impacted by what chickens eat.

    If you’re looking for healthier eggs what you’re after isn’t organic eggs per se, but rather pastured eggs.

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/pastured-vs-omega-3-vs-conventional-eggs#section3

  75. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Andrew Yang’s op-ed on CNN

     

    Well, I swallowed my cynicism for a moment and tried reading it.

    Yuck.

    How anyone could take this guy seriously is amazing to me when he openly admits he'll do nothing to change our disastrous immigration regime.

    At least Trump lied about it.

    I'd rather be lied to than told honestly that nothing will change.

    A man's gotta have a dream, after all.

    i think YangGang was a stage in grieving for Trump’s surrender and 2020 will turn out to be the year of intersectional trolling to get all the Dem factions at war with each other and peel off the last few remaining hetero white dudes.

  76. I remember learning in animals shows in TV as a kid that wolves eat the digestive organs of their prey first to get the half-digested plants. Also great apes are mostly vegetarian, eating every fruit they can get.
    Concerning beef: I like it, too, but I avoid raw beef, because of the studies of the nobel-prize winner zur Hausen (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_Meat_and_Milk_Factors).

    • Replies: @songbird

    Also great apes are mostly vegetarian, eating every fruit they can get.
     
    This might be a problem for Mr. Karlin's idea of uplifting them and putting them on assembly lines. That is the reason why gorillas are barrel-chested - vegetarian diet, mainly shoots and leaves - larger stomach - even needs more ribs to protect it, 26 compared to 24. They spend a lot more time eating, and would probably not be great workers.

    But maybe, you could adapt them to meat, since some gorillas eat termites, and some chimps eat monkeys.

    I think it is amazing to think that many of the acts of aggression of chimps are largely predicated on defending fruit trees. And they are our closest living relatives. Possibly an indication that there is something wrong with the kumbaya sentiment of liberals who invite invasion.
  77. @Dacian Julien Soros bis
    In a related note, what the evidence that keto diet does something to your benefit? Has anyone seen it improve physical or mental abilities in a RCT? Did it prevent or cure any disease?

    And if not, what does it say about people who use the K word in a non-ironic way?

    OT: I am sorry for changing names too often, but I won't be bothered with providing personal info, and it seems that any handle I use gets registered and used by others.

    (sample of one)

    fixed my sleep problems

    haven’t had a cold since i started (but that’s probably the eggs rather than keto per se)

  78. @AaronB

    and more importantly my ongoing n = 1 RCT.
     
    This is high quality evidence I will accept.

    I am actually going out now to buy lots of delicious, fatty beef short ribs which I will barbecue. I will dream of cavemen as I consume them.

    The past few days, not intentionally, I ate almost entirely vegetarian. Eggs were my main protein. You would be disgusted.

    eggs are primo keto

  79. @Mr. Hack
    Are the extra $2-$3 bucks more per carton of eggs for 'organic eggs' really worth it? I'm sure that you have a well reasoned opinion about this...

    Yes, they’re totally worth it: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/animals/

    FWIW, there are some good selfish arguments for the latter. For instance, where I live, free range eggs cost 50% more than eggs from battery raised chickens. However, free range eggs have 2-3x the vitamin content of the latter, so opting for them might be a good deal anyway.

    Thanks to Thorfinnsson for hunting down that chart. I remember seeing it somewhere (Sisson?) but couldn’t find it for that post.

    I also agree with him on not limiting egg consumption. Dietary cholestorol (main boogeyman for eggs) has zilch to do with bodily cholesterol.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @notanon
    i feel like a hippy buying the fancy eggs but gotta do it.
  80. @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, they're totally worth it: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/animals/

    FWIW, there are some good selfish arguments for the latter. For instance, where I live, free range eggs cost 50% more than eggs from battery raised chickens. However, free range eggs have 2-3x the vitamin content of the latter, so opting for them might be a good deal anyway.
     
    Thanks to Thorfinnsson for hunting down that chart. I remember seeing it somewhere (Sisson?) but couldn't find it for that post.

    I also agree with him on not limiting egg consumption. Dietary cholestorol (main boogeyman for eggs) has zilch to do with bodily cholesterol.

    i feel like a hippy buying the fancy eggs but gotta do it.

  81. @Thorfinnsson
    I have about two dozen eggs a week. I don't think there's any reason to limit egg consumption.

    On egg salad watch out for the mayo. Unfortunately it's probably made with "vegetable" oil.

    I try to cut down on the ‘mayo’ (actually miracle whip, please forgive me, you’re probably a purist) by substituting sour cream. Perhaps, a two to one ratio. The onions and jalapeno help all around with the flavoring, as does a pinch of salt and black pepper. To make it taste even more exotic, sometimes I throw in a small spoonful of Turmeric.

    But I can see that there’s really a big difference in nutritional value between the caged and free range chicken eggs! I’m sure that you’re not getting the free range ones at the gas station, but how about at home?…Thanks for the chart.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    But I can see that there’s really a big difference in nutritional value between the caged and free range chicken eggs!

    Caveat emptor:

    https://cdn.thepennyhoarder.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/12165504/EGG-GRAPHIC-TEST-02-03-01.jpg

    https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/food/cage-free-vs-free-range-vs-pastured-eggs/
  82. anonymous[260] • Disclaimer says:

    Expects large scale African migration into demographically weakening China later this century. I can see this happening. As spandrell says, Chinese HBD realism is folksy, not “scientific”. Flimsy foundations against the Poz storm.

    The number of Africans studying in China has grown by a lot. There are now 60,000 African (including North African) students. It’s pretty hard to graduate and stay in China due to tough visa restrictions so most African students go back at graduation. There’s the possibility anything can happen including the student route becoming the means for large scale African immigration to China. But it’s hard to see how opinion changes in China to allow for large scale African immigration. The labor force has been shrinking for 5 years and immigration laws are only getting tougher.

    India is also attracting a lot of African students. Currently the population is at 25,000. I expect India to overtake China eventually in numbers because of the lower cost and higher quality of English language education. Chinese universities catering to low end foreign students have a bad reputation for not providing much of any education. China is now a relatively costly place in the developing world. The main factor that attracts developing country students to China might actually be soft power.

  83. @Erik Sieven
    I remember learning in animals shows in TV as a kid that wolves eat the digestive organs of their prey first to get the half-digested plants. Also great apes are mostly vegetarian, eating every fruit they can get.
    Concerning beef: I like it, too, but I avoid raw beef, because of the studies of the nobel-prize winner zur Hausen (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_Meat_and_Milk_Factors).

    Also great apes are mostly vegetarian, eating every fruit they can get.

    This might be a problem for Mr. Karlin’s idea of uplifting them and putting them on assembly lines. That is the reason why gorillas are barrel-chested – vegetarian diet, mainly shoots and leaves – larger stomach – even needs more ribs to protect it, 26 compared to 24. They spend a lot more time eating, and would probably not be great workers.

    But maybe, you could adapt them to meat, since some gorillas eat termites, and some chimps eat monkeys.

    I think it is amazing to think that many of the acts of aggression of chimps are largely predicated on defending fruit trees. And they are our closest living relatives. Possibly an indication that there is something wrong with the kumbaya sentiment of liberals who invite invasion.

  84. @Mr. Hack
    Are the extra $2-$3 bucks more per carton of eggs for 'organic eggs' really worth it? I'm sure that you have a well reasoned opinion about this...

    The whole “organic” concept including “free range” is just a gimmick that preys on liberal sensibilities, to increase profit. The whole world would starve, if it had to eat everything “organic.”

    I have had fresh eggs. They look slightly different – the yolk is more orange – but taste exactly the same, just as do the eggs of other bird species.

    Two things to keep in mind with “free-range”: 1.) it is often just a label that they put on the outside of chicken warehouses. 2.) the practice is objectively evil.

    Why point #2? Well, it is simple – you will be the cause of the next super-flu pandemic, easily surpassing the kill count of the most venerated communist dictators, like Stalin and Mao. The 1918 outbreak killed 100+ million, and the world is much more connected now.

    Free-range chickens can interact with other animals like pigs, until they get their flu strains evolve to acquire the right H and N proteins for maximum killing-power. This is not a problem for warehoused chickens.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    The whole “organic” concept including “free range” is just a gimmick that preys on liberal sensibilities, to increase profit.
     
    This is my initial gut feeling about the topic too, however, both Thorfinnsson and Karlin, both of whom I usually trust in scienttific matters (well, maybe not so much with the 'uplift' of animals routine that Karlin recently posted) both recommend the 'free range' eggs that indicate a much higher nutritional value than the normal, warehoused variety. However, your admonition regarding bacterial infections being perhaps more prominent with the free range variety is a head scratcher? I watched a documentary yesterday on the local science station, and there's definitely something there with birds being excellent carriers of very harmful bacteria?........
    , @notanon
    i don't know where chickens get the vitamin D they put in eggs but for now i assume it's from the sun.
  85. @Thorfinnsson
    You can buy peeled hard boiled eggs in the grocery store now. There are ten packs of Eggland's Best peeled hard boiled eggs at my local Kroger. Very convenient if you're a big consumer of hard boiled eggs.

    https://www.egglandsbest.com/product/hard-cooked-peeled-eggs/

    Thanks for the follow-up. I’m aware of that option.

    Boiling eggs isn’t as bad as preparing rice the traditional way, which is why I do the boil in the bag route, which I’ve been told isn’t the healthier route.

  86. @reiner Tor
    I don’t think the Russians should be just sitting on less than a dozen not-even-test-flown Su-57s, even if the only threats to their air force were the 170+ F-22 fighters. After all, I noticed that 170>>>10, and a point could be made that with the exception of a few hundred modern fighters (Su-27SM2/3, Su-30, Su-35, maybe some MiGs like the modernized versions of the MiG-29, including the basically nonexistent MiG-35, in some roles the modernized versions of the MiG-31), their warplanes are no match for the most modern Western (especially American) fighters. Certainly not in numbers: NATO has air superiority even without the US Air Force.

    Another point (and this is important regarding the F-35, too), is that people often underestimate the soft qualities of weapons. American weapons usually provide better situational awareness, and it’s especially true of the F-35. The F-35 pilot will see such a complex picture (receiving data from multiple sources), and the computer will highlight for him the most relevant data, that even if it had inferior performance otherwise, it’d be a formidable opponent. Better kinematic performance or better weapons are worthless without knowing where the enemy is, which of the enemies pose the largest danger, etc.

    So I think the Russians are not very smart if they seriously believe this.

    Good discussion about the Su-57 and F-35.

    Firstly: I’m not an aerodynamics expert either. And while the Su-57 program has certainly not gone 100% according to plan, those forum posts are probably BS for the most part.

    The truth regarding the F-35 is probably somewhere between the two extremes as well, as usual. On the one hand, it’s most likely not this perfect symbol of AngloZionist Empire’s decay, nor is the F-35 literally inferior to Sopwith Camel from WW1 (as suggested by alt-media commenters), but on the other hand, it’s not the master of all trades either.

    I’ll just quote Spacebattles.com user TR1, who seems to be a real expert on the Russian military. This was posted in 2019:

    That is…completely false. Literally a narrative invented by crappy English language blogs, who purposefully misread Bosirov’s words as “we cant fund the Su-57” when in reality all he said is “current planes are good so we have no reason to rush the development schedule”.

    There is zero indication the program is starved for money. It is in full development, they are just waiting on izd 30 to be ready to launch production en-masse. If we compare timelines even to Su-27, Su-57 is not really late or super behin schedule.
    They would not be testing it alongside Ohotnik [the drone] if they were barely able to keep the program afloat.
    As for exports, it is Rostec basically saying “yeah I think they will offer it for export soon”, which means nothing for actual export contracts right now (Knaaz is still making making a production line) and says nothing about a desperation to sell. It also certainly does not mean they will sell to anyone.

    The Pak-fa has always been a priority program, and the Russian defense budget is still robust.
    People just looked at GPV 2011-2020 and thought the “60 PAK-FA” in it actually meant contracts, when really it was a vague force intention that had little to do with Sukohi’s actual pace.
    From the start of the program I figured there would not be appreciable numbers until post 2020, and that is exactly how it is coming together.

    When it comes to vs. NATO comparisons, Russia’s very modern IADS must be taken into account as well. Not to mention that by the end 2020 Russia will technically have more than a “few” hundred modern fighters. My calculations, roughly:

    12 (or is it 2?) Su-57, 100 Su-35, 160 Su-30, 100+ upgraded Su-27, 60 (?) MiG 29K/SMT/MiG-35, 120 MiG-31BM, 150 Su-34. That’s more than 700 aircraft, and it doesn’t include some MiG-31Ks or Su-33s (to be upgraded).

    Even without the IADS, that would clearly be the 3rd strongest air force in the world. Russophile triggering: “3RD STRONGEST!?!? IT’S ONLY THE AMERICANS AND US! IT’S FOREVER 2008 IN THE CHINESE AIR FORCE! MUH ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES.” (Anyone who gets the reference, that debate between Karlin and Martyanov was hilarious, I only read it a few days ago.) Now to be fair, one could still plausibly rank Russia above China in 2020, after all Russia’s IADS and bomber fleet remain superior, but the overall conclusion would objectively be far from obvious.

    I do agree that they better get their shit together with the Su-57 procurement by the mid-2020s, but overall you can’t ask for much more than that, all things considered.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I was unsure if I should count the MiG-31s and Su-34s, because I was more thinking in terms of air superiority roles - what can Russia field against NATO air forces if there was a danger of conflict?

    I think the danger of nuclear war exists mostly because Western politicians (and to a large extent generals) don't take Russian conventional abilities seriously. Now with Westerners fielding several hundreds of F-35s annually (I don't know if you followed the discussion, but in my opinion it's obvious that the F-35 is very good in BVR combat and, at least when it has numerical superiority, probably can hold its own in WVR combat, too), in addition to the already formidable and numerically superior existing fleet of modern fighters and the purchases of some additional 4th gen fighters in many countries (Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, now Poland is buying something, though it could easily be F-35, Hungary is likely to expand its air force, though, again, it could easily be the F-35), and it's pretty obvious that the people advocating for brinkmanship do have a point: NATO will have overwhelming air superiority.

    Regarding China (I don't know which debate of Karlin and Martyanov you're referring to), are you aware that the Chinese 5th generation fighters have no cannons?
  87. @Boswald Bollocksworth
    I gots a вопрос for you Russians: I’m visiting Russia this summer and am hoping to get a non ZOGed notebook. Can anyone confirm that the Intel Managment Engine is disabled on Russian machines? I’ve seen this claimed but never anything authoritative. Alternatively, what’s the state of Russian’s domestic CPUs? Can one buy a laptop with a Baikal or Elbrus CPU that can run normal GNU/Linux? Please respond.

    Alternatively, what’s the state of Russian’s domestic CPUs? Can one buy a laptop with a Baikal or Elbrus CPU that can run normal GNU/Linux? Please respond.

    These are commercial/industrial products, that are produced for businesses.

    With a little work, you could use it for a desktop to run Linux products – , it’s just MIPS processors.

    From an import substitution point of view, they are not extremely local. Architecture are designs they license from MIPS Technologies, and they are produced in Taiwan.

  88. @songbird
    The whole "organic" concept including "free range" is just a gimmick that preys on liberal sensibilities, to increase profit. The whole world would starve, if it had to eat everything "organic."

    I have had fresh eggs. They look slightly different - the yolk is more orange - but taste exactly the same, just as do the eggs of other bird species.

    Two things to keep in mind with "free-range": 1.) it is often just a label that they put on the outside of chicken warehouses. 2.) the practice is objectively evil.

    Why point #2? Well, it is simple - you will be the cause of the next super-flu pandemic, easily surpassing the kill count of the most venerated communist dictators, like Stalin and Mao. The 1918 outbreak killed 100+ million, and the world is much more connected now.

    Free-range chickens can interact with other animals like pigs, until they get their flu strains evolve to acquire the right H and N proteins for maximum killing-power. This is not a problem for warehoused chickens.

    The whole “organic” concept including “free range” is just a gimmick that preys on liberal sensibilities, to increase profit.

    This is my initial gut feeling about the topic too, however, both Thorfinnsson and Karlin, both of whom I usually trust in scienttific matters (well, maybe not so much with the ‘uplift’ of animals routine that Karlin recently posted) both recommend the ‘free range’ eggs that indicate a much higher nutritional value than the normal, warehoused variety. However, your admonition regarding bacterial infections being perhaps more prominent with the free range variety is a head scratcher? I watched a documentary yesterday on the local science station, and there’s definitely something there with birds being excellent carriers of very harmful bacteria?……..

    • Replies: @songbird
    The biggest single danger - we are talking globally - is the flu, which is a virus. Outside birds are effectively connected to other species that get the flu - could be other farm animals like pigs, or even wild birds or bats. Sometimes strains from different species come together in the same animal. This can in theory, provide the right formula for infecting people with a virus that is not evolved to play nicely in people. One that has a much greater mortality rate than normal flu.

    My grandmother's sister died of the flu in 1918 - she was quite young. In the 1960's my father got a flu which caused him to cough up bloody mucous.

    Some people contend that the 1918 outbreak which killed millions of young people - probably over a 100 million when you consider places like India and China - only happened because of special circumstances of WWI - thousands of men dying together from their wounds. But that is a bit of a debate, by one traditional narrative (with deaths in America), it was the Yanks who brought it to Europe, and who had caught it from Chinese.

    Most of the eggs in China come from warehouses now - this decreases the danger. But there is Africa and now there is this yuppy free-ranging tendency which I see as regressive. Of course, in such a case, you would most likely catch the flu from another person, but funding the practice of free-ranging increases the danger.

    In terms of bacteria, I would say the danger is slight, unless you like raw eggs. As long as every part of the egg is heated to about 170 degrees F or so, you are okay. That is one of the remarkable things about eggs - their ability to keep for so long - in many countries they are not refrigerated. This is due partly to the natural antibacterial properties of the egg whites - definitely would not eat them raw though.
  89. @Boswald Bollocksworth
    Without being a pilot or an engineer I want to have some humility evaluating the F-35 question. From what I can see, it is the disaster many claim. Here's how I arrive at this:

    1. Pierre Sprey makes what sounds like a good argument, in this debate, the USAF pilot he argues with resorts to marketing talking points and emotional arguments. Sprey uses only technical arguments. This means there are no good answers to Sprey's points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pgiq-TlmSo

    2. The Russians aren't too worried about it. Russia has the SU 57 project, but they are taking their time. I wonder if the SU 57 isn't more an effort to understand the properties of a stealthy, internal weapons bay fighter, in order to develop asymmetrical responses to it.

    3. The Turks would rather have S-400s than F-35s. Turkey has a modern air force, they certainly can evaluate these planes. They've concluded the S-400 is more important for them than the F-35

    4. The USAF is buying modernized F-15s and the F-21 (sooped up F-16) project, on offer to India, might also be an indication that Lockheed sees a potential market for an upgraded F-16 in other countries.

    F-35 is a plane designed by committee to show off technology and run up big bills. Its main advantage is its supposed stealth and information sharing across planes. As soon as non-gay countries figure out how to reliably see it on radar (and maybe they have already) the F-35 becomes merely a slow jet with stumpy wings, high maintenance needs and small payload. In the chaos of war against a competent opponent, all this PR spin about the benefits of sharing info might be out the window.

    Soft American pilots will be shitting their pants and wishing they were at a winebar with their henpecking wives the moment they start losing planes to cheap Russian and Chinese made SAMs in the event of a dust up. The future belongs to drones, SAMs and computer controlled AAA.

    Sprey has the advantage of debating a moron. It’s worth noting that his opponent is a retired Lieutenant Colonel who retired after twenty-three years of service.

    Twenty years of service is when you become eligible for the gold-plated US military pension.

    The next upgrade comes with thirty years of service.

    Retiring at 23 years as a Lieutenant Colonel, an officer rank which almost anyone can attain, strongly suggests he was passed over twice for promotion to full bird Colonel and thus cashiered from the service.

    Not hard to see why since he can’t argue…at all. He argued against dog fights and even…wing loading. And of course he tried to hide behind his uniform which military dweebs love to do. It’s their version of, “Are you a DOCTOR????!”

    Sprey has many good ideas and arguments, but he’s something of a charlatan. He genuinely thinks BVR combat is completely useless and that fighters shouldn’t even be designed for it. Sprey has suggested that America’s primary fighter should not have a radar. He also claims the Browning M2 .50 caliber machine gun is still the best A2A weapon ever fielded (it wasn’t even the best A2A weapon, or even best heavy machine gun, of WW2).

    See Fred Reed on this: https://fredoneverything.org/the-fighter-mafia-of-odle-oops-and-error/

    No one can accuse me of being an F-35 apologist, but it isn’t as bad as Sprey and those of his ilk claim. Its WVR performance is almost certainly worse than any of the premier Gen 4 fighters (US teen series, Eurocanards, Su-27 family, MiG-29 family), but it’s still good. Better than the F-4 for instance, which is still in service in some countries. And it is almost certainly the best BVR fighter of its size class in the world (or will be soon).

    The F-35 is costly, but America is a rich country as are our allies. The latest production contract for the F-35A drops the unit price to $80m. This is only $10m more than the Super Hornet (granted, this is a navalized aircraft and the F-35C will cost more than the F-35A). That’s also a lower price than the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon.

    The Su-57 is quite clearly designed to hunt F-22 Raptors. That’s why it’s designed for super maneuverability and has L-band cheek radars. Probably the Russians also intend to use it for differential training so “legacy” fighter pilots get an idea of how to fight stealth fighters, but the Su-57 is less stealthy than the F-22. On the other hand it may be around as stealthy than the F-35, which makes it useful for training against the F-35 in BVR combat.

  90. @Thorfinnsson
    Obviously the technology of the F-35 is much more advanced than the F-16.

    But that does not mean it is a superior dogfighter.

    The F-35 has compromised aerodynamics, weight, and cockpit visibility owing to the VTOL requirements requested by the Marine Corps and Royal Navy. The "stealth" requirement also contributes to these problems, though at least stealth is a defensible design priority since it offers benefits.

    Or it would if the F-35 were actually stealthy...


    The improved performance of A2A missiles actually increases the importance of maneuvering performance in fighters, because maneuvering is the last line of defense in defeating an incoming A2A missile shot.

    If A2A missiles ever get sufficiently good that they cannot be defeated by maneuvering at all, then it will be time to abandon fighter aircraft entirely. The best choice would simply be modified wide body airliners carrying hundreds or even thousands of missiles.

    I'm of the opinion that the F-35 should simply be canceled. In the short-term F-22 production should be restarted (and exported) and more teen series fighters ordered. Perhaps we can even order Eurocanards. After all, the Chair Force did once order the English Electric Canberra bomber (produced in America as the Martin B-57 Canberra). The P-51 Mustang also famously had a license-built Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 engine because General Motors refused to develop an appropriate supercharged variant of its Allison V-12.

    The Dassault Rafale would be an excellent fighter for both the Navy and the Air Force. The Rafale could also be re-engined with a superior American engine like the General Electric F414. The Marines for their part don't need fighters and need to be told to go pound sand. The Royal Navy of course should put catapults in their stupid Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers since VTOL aircraft are dogshit.

    Long-term entirely new fighters are needed of course. In the intermediate term the teen series fighters could be evolved like what Sukhoi has done with the Su-27. The Japanese have an evolved F-16 variant, and there was an interesting F-16 experiment in the 80s called the F-16XL.

    maneuvering is the last line of defense

    The reason for low-speed supermaneuverability is to be able to target opposing plane, while maneuvering. It’s this superior ability to change the angle of the plane at low speed, is why NATO was so scared of the MiG-29 (and later designs like the Ss-35 have amazing capacities in this area). .

    For a maneuver to avoid missiles, plane needs to turn fast – in which case, I have read, they are limited by the pilot’s resistance to g forces, more than a mechanical limitation. This is a limit at 9g, when pilot’s can reach without losing consciousness.

    Or it would if the F-35 were actually stealthy…

    I can’t find much information on the topic? They argue here from a visual analysis:

    they also confirm that the F-35 RCS is really
    low, at least as far as the fuselage is concerned. Especially in the X-band, the
    calculated (average) RCS is even lower than the one revealed by USAF and the
    decrease in detection range with respect to the “standard target” is dramatic. For
    example, the APG68 of the F-16 is expected to “see” the F-35 at a distance of
    roughly 5 NM.

    http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    This ballet wasn't designed to entertain people at aviation shows, it is re-assuring to hear.

    The rapid and perfectly controlled low-speed change in the angle of the plane (while maintaining same direction of flight) allows it align into the correct position to target an enemy plane which is maneuvering around it. (The topic is explained a lot in the documentary I linked above).


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZquLvrj9GI

    To avoid a missile the plane has to turn its direction of flight as rapidly as possible, which is limited a lot by pilot's tolerance to g-forces.

    , @Thorfinnsson


    The reason for low-speed supermaneuverability is to be able to target opposing plane, while manuevering with another plane in visual range. It’s this superior ability to cheap the angle of the plane at low speed, is why NATO was so scared of the MiG-29 .
     
    It's not just an issue at low speed. In the Vietnam War an F-4E Phantom II of the USAF scored a supersonic gun kill over a MiG-19:

    https://theaviationgeekclub.com/how-a-usaf-f-4e-flying-at-mach-1-2-gun-killed-a-north-vietnamese-mig-19-scoring-the-worlds-only-supersonic-gun-kill/


    For a maneuver to avoid missiles, plane needs to turn fast – in which case, I have read, they are limited by the pilot’s resistance to g forces, more than a mechanical limitation. This is a limit at 9g, when pilot’s can reach without losing consciousness.
     
    An aircraft flying at 500 knots turning at 9g can defeat a missile flying at mach 4 turning at 40g.

    There are also new flight suits in development which are supposed to raise the g limit to 13-14g. Of course that would require new aircraft to take advantage of.


    I can’t find much information on the topic? They argue here from a visual analysis:
    [...]
    http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf
     
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html#mozTocId79584

    http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/JSF-RCS-Qualitative-A-XLVHF.png
  91. @Mr. Hack

    The whole “organic” concept including “free range” is just a gimmick that preys on liberal sensibilities, to increase profit.
     
    This is my initial gut feeling about the topic too, however, both Thorfinnsson and Karlin, both of whom I usually trust in scienttific matters (well, maybe not so much with the 'uplift' of animals routine that Karlin recently posted) both recommend the 'free range' eggs that indicate a much higher nutritional value than the normal, warehoused variety. However, your admonition regarding bacterial infections being perhaps more prominent with the free range variety is a head scratcher? I watched a documentary yesterday on the local science station, and there's definitely something there with birds being excellent carriers of very harmful bacteria?........

    The biggest single danger – we are talking globally – is the flu, which is a virus. Outside birds are effectively connected to other species that get the flu – could be other farm animals like pigs, or even wild birds or bats. Sometimes strains from different species come together in the same animal. This can in theory, provide the right formula for infecting people with a virus that is not evolved to play nicely in people. One that has a much greater mortality rate than normal flu.

    My grandmother’s sister died of the flu in 1918 – she was quite young. In the 1960’s my father got a flu which caused him to cough up bloody mucous.

    Some people contend that the 1918 outbreak which killed millions of young people – probably over a 100 million when you consider places like India and China – only happened because of special circumstances of WWI – thousands of men dying together from their wounds. But that is a bit of a debate, by one traditional narrative (with deaths in America), it was the Yanks who brought it to Europe, and who had caught it from Chinese.

    Most of the eggs in China come from warehouses now – this decreases the danger. But there is Africa and now there is this yuppy free-ranging tendency which I see as regressive. Of course, in such a case, you would most likely catch the flu from another person, but funding the practice of free-ranging increases the danger.

    In terms of bacteria, I would say the danger is slight, unless you like raw eggs. As long as every part of the egg is heated to about 170 degrees F or so, you are okay. That is one of the remarkable things about eggs – their ability to keep for so long – in many countries they are not refrigerated. This is due partly to the natural antibacterial properties of the egg whites – definitely would not eat them raw though.

  92. @Dmitry

    maneuvering is the last line of defense
     
    The reason for low-speed supermaneuverability is to be able to target opposing plane, while maneuvering. It's this superior ability to change the angle of the plane at low speed, is why NATO was so scared of the MiG-29 (and later designs like the Ss-35 have amazing capacities in this area). .

    For a maneuver to avoid missiles, plane needs to turn fast - in which case, I have read, they are limited by the pilot's resistance to g forces, more than a mechanical limitation. This is a limit at 9g, when pilot's can reach without losing consciousness.


    Or it would if the F-35 were actually stealthy…

     

    I can't find much information on the topic? They argue here from a visual analysis:

    they also confirm that the F-35 RCS is really
    low, at least as far as the fuselage is concerned. Especially in the X-band, the
    calculated (average) RCS is even lower than the one revealed by USAF and the
    decrease in detection range with respect to the “standard target” is dramatic. For
    example, the APG68 of the F-16 is expected to “see” the F-35 at a distance of
    roughly 5 NM.

     

    http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf

    This ballet wasn’t designed to entertain people at aviation shows, it is re-assuring to hear.

    The rapid and perfectly controlled low-speed change in the angle of the plane (while maintaining same direction of flight) allows it align into the correct position to target an enemy plane which is maneuvering around it. (The topic is explained a lot in the documentary I linked above).

    To avoid a missile the plane has to turn its direction of flight as rapidly as possible, which is limited a lot by pilot’s tolerance to g-forces.

  93. @songbird
    The whole "organic" concept including "free range" is just a gimmick that preys on liberal sensibilities, to increase profit. The whole world would starve, if it had to eat everything "organic."

    I have had fresh eggs. They look slightly different - the yolk is more orange - but taste exactly the same, just as do the eggs of other bird species.

    Two things to keep in mind with "free-range": 1.) it is often just a label that they put on the outside of chicken warehouses. 2.) the practice is objectively evil.

    Why point #2? Well, it is simple - you will be the cause of the next super-flu pandemic, easily surpassing the kill count of the most venerated communist dictators, like Stalin and Mao. The 1918 outbreak killed 100+ million, and the world is much more connected now.

    Free-range chickens can interact with other animals like pigs, until they get their flu strains evolve to acquire the right H and N proteins for maximum killing-power. This is not a problem for warehoused chickens.

    i don’t know where chickens get the vitamin D they put in eggs but for now i assume it’s from the sun.

    • Replies: @songbird
    That's right - the sun or feed.
  94. @Dmitry

    maneuvering is the last line of defense
     
    The reason for low-speed supermaneuverability is to be able to target opposing plane, while maneuvering. It's this superior ability to change the angle of the plane at low speed, is why NATO was so scared of the MiG-29 (and later designs like the Ss-35 have amazing capacities in this area). .

    For a maneuver to avoid missiles, plane needs to turn fast - in which case, I have read, they are limited by the pilot's resistance to g forces, more than a mechanical limitation. This is a limit at 9g, when pilot's can reach without losing consciousness.


    Or it would if the F-35 were actually stealthy…

     

    I can't find much information on the topic? They argue here from a visual analysis:

    they also confirm that the F-35 RCS is really
    low, at least as far as the fuselage is concerned. Especially in the X-band, the
    calculated (average) RCS is even lower than the one revealed by USAF and the
    decrease in detection range with respect to the “standard target” is dramatic. For
    example, the APG68 of the F-16 is expected to “see” the F-35 at a distance of
    roughly 5 NM.

     

    http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf

    The reason for low-speed supermaneuverability is to be able to target opposing plane, while manuevering with another plane in visual range. It’s this superior ability to cheap the angle of the plane at low speed, is why NATO was so scared of the MiG-29 .

    It’s not just an issue at low speed. In the Vietnam War an F-4E Phantom II of the USAF scored a supersonic gun kill over a MiG-19:

    https://theaviationgeekclub.com/how-a-usaf-f-4e-flying-at-mach-1-2-gun-killed-a-north-vietnamese-mig-19-scoring-the-worlds-only-supersonic-gun-kill/

    For a maneuver to avoid missiles, plane needs to turn fast – in which case, I have read, they are limited by the pilot’s resistance to g forces, more than a mechanical limitation. This is a limit at 9g, when pilot’s can reach without losing consciousness.

    An aircraft flying at 500 knots turning at 9g can defeat a missile flying at mach 4 turning at 40g.

    There are also new flight suits in development which are supposed to raise the g limit to 13-14g. Of course that would require new aircraft to take advantage of.

    I can’t find much information on the topic? They argue here from a visual analysis:
    […]
    http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html#mozTocId79584

  95. @notanon
    i don't know where chickens get the vitamin D they put in eggs but for now i assume it's from the sun.

    That’s right – the sun or feed.

    • Replies: @notanon
    thing is the artificial vitamin D they put in supplements (and i assume feed) is made from mushrooms and they say it works exactly the same but i haven't tested that myself.
  96. @Anatoly Karlin
    I wish my local Perekrestok carried them. I am too lazy to boil them for 15 mins when I can instead fry them in 2 mins in my beef bacon fat.

    My man, 15 min of boiling is overcooking it.

    The key to hard-boiled eggs is to get them out just as the yolk is soldifying or just after that. This way the yolk is still a little gooey and a dark orange. They will have a much better flavor than overcooked ones which become a light yellow and are quite crumbly.

    For me it takes about 4.5 or 5 min to get them this way, but you may have to experiment & adjust according to egg size.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    https://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/the-secrets-to-peeling-hard-boiled-eggs.html

    https://amazingribs.com/tested-recipes/other-fun-food-recipes/how-boil-egg

    https://www.norprowebstore.com/norpro-egg-rite-timer-carded-5902c.html
  97. @Bassarab
    My man, 15 min of boiling is overcooking it.

    The key to hard-boiled eggs is to get them out just as the yolk is soldifying or just after that. This way the yolk is still a little gooey and a dark orange. They will have a much better flavor than overcooked ones which become a light yellow and are quite crumbly.

    For me it takes about 4.5 or 5 min to get them this way, but you may have to experiment & adjust according to egg size.

  98. @Mr. Hack
    I try to cut down on the 'mayo' (actually miracle whip, please forgive me, you're probably a purist) by substituting sour cream. Perhaps, a two to one ratio. The onions and jalapeno help all around with the flavoring, as does a pinch of salt and black pepper. To make it taste even more exotic, sometimes I throw in a small spoonful of Turmeric.

    But I can see that there's really a big difference in nutritional value between the caged and free range chicken eggs! I'm sure that you're not getting the free range ones at the gas station, but how about at home?...Thanks for the chart.

    But I can see that there’s really a big difference in nutritional value between the caged and free range chicken eggs!

    Caveat emptor:

    https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/food/cage-free-vs-free-range-vs-pastured-eggs/

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @notanon
    very useful, ty
    , @Dacian Julien Soros bis
    Your egg series sorely needs a side column of bears getting worse and worse outfits.

    Chicken do not have emotions, and even people struggle with happiness. Talking about the happy chick makes me unhappy. I am losing faith in humanity.

    A large majority of the planet already has all the required nutrients in their usual food. Maybe someone in a remote Afghan village doesn't, but did you or anyone you ever met have scurvy or ricketts?

    Finally, people here doubt the words of the US government, and believe that hundreds of thousands of employees are engaged in conspiracies to fake Moon landing, JFK murder, or 9/11. But we should believe a for-profit, privately-help corp., which MUST move the eggs from the chicken's ass to the packaging machine?

    In 2013, multiple UK and Dutch businesses labeled Romanian mustang meat as French beef, a lie that was easily denied by a one-hour, 5-dollar DNA test - and yet it went on for a year. What would prevent chicken eggs from being mislabeled as "kosher-free", or whatever else Peterson's daughter says you must have?
  99. @Thorfinnsson
    The F-22 has a much higher loaded weight than the F-35 and also has a much higher thrust-to-weight ratio.

    Loaded weight is 64,480 pounds and maximum thrust 70,000 pounds. Thrust-to-weight ratio is 1.09, which is slightly higher than the aircraft it was supposed to replace (the F-15C, ratio 1.07).

    It's true that the F-35A is a larger aircraft and can carry more weapons, but it was supposed to be a low end fighter for the Air Force and Navy per the Hi-Lo fighter mix that emerged in the 1970s. So it's entirely fair to compare the F-35A to the F-16. Likewise comparing the F-35C to the F/A-18 Hornet is appropriate.

    The program has other similarities to the F-16. It's going to be produced in large numbers, it's going to be the main American fighter for NATO, and there's a lot of foreign involvement in production. F-16s are assembled in a number of foreign countries, and there's even a Japanese F-16 derivative.

    It was also supposed to be inexpensive like the F-16, which unfortunately didn't happen.

    Should also be pointed out that carrying more weapons than an F-16 requires external carriage of stores, which eliminates the frontal stealth which is the raison d'etre for the F-35 design.

    An F-35A carrying two 2,000 pound bombs internally probably has less drag than an F-16 with the same warload. But I bet the F-16 has a smaller drag area in an air-to-air loadout because A2A missiles have a very small drag area.

    The F-35A is also supposed to replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II which is dubious to say the least.

    I’m not sure my point came across.

    The F-35 is theoretically capable of carrying almost triple the weapons load as the F-16. This is only fully used in strike missions with zero danger of enemy air force or air defense activity. This is a big advantage for countries which often fight third world tribesmen like Afghanis (the US is one such country), because it’s much cheaper to deliver the same amount of weapons in one mission than it is to carry them in three separate missions.

    In an air to air fighter configuration the F-35 carries exactly the same amount of weapons as the F-16. I assert that for this reason, when comparing dogfighting abilities, the fully loaded number is only somewhat meaningful for the F-16 (because it’s fully loaded already in an air to air configuration), but totally meaningless for the F-35. This number punishes the F-35 for its extra ability to cheaply bomb Afghani or Somali tribesmen, when in fact it’s irrelevant to dogfighting.

    Now in a dogfight the most realistic is actually a lightly loaded number for the F-16 with just a couple short range missiles (theoretically the BVR missiles had already been shot), but dogfighting could come as a surprise while carrying BVR weapons (maybe against enemy stealth planes), so maybe the full air to air configuration makes sense.

    I don’t understand why this simple point (that they should be compared with the same weapons, and not punish the F-35 for its extra ability to cheaply bomb third worlders) is so difficult to accept.

    By the way the celebrated Chinese 5th gen fighters have zero dogfighting abilities, because they don’t even have machine guns.

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/problem-chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-doesnt-have-gun-40402

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    The F-35 is theoretically capable of carrying almost triple the weapons load as the F-16. This is only fully used in strike missions with zero danger of enemy air force or air defense activity. This is a big advantage for countries which often fight third world tribesmen like Afghanis (the US is one such country), because it’s much cheaper to deliver the same amount of weapons in one mission than it is to carry them in three separate missions.
     

    Cost per flying hour of the F-35A is 2-3x higher than the F-16.

    http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21776/f-35-cheaper/

    The F-35's frontal stealth and internal weapons carriage are intended to briefly penetrate defended airspace, bomb a target, and withdraw. The ability to carry external stores is good of course, but the aircraft isn't a bomb truck for colonial wars (though it might get a lot of use in that mission). Bear in mind that the JSF project was launched before America launched its stupid Forever War.

    The US also already has the F-15E for this role. The F-15E can carry more weapons than an F-35A. This aircraft has also been exported to South Korea and Singapore (with various upgrades), so it's not a US-only type. And the Chair Force is now proposing to order more F-15Es with their F-15X proposal.

    A better choice in permissive environments is a heavy bomber.

    The B-1B and B-52H cost only 50% more per hour than the F-35A to fly as you can see. A fully loaded out B-1B (including external stores) can carry sixty tons of bombs.

    I've suggested before that we make use of wide body airliners for missions like this. A very large order should be placed with Boeing for a large fleet of 777s for transport, tanker, AEWR, ELINT, maritime patrol, and bomber missions.

    http://what2fly.com/manufacturer/operating_cost/Boeing/777/1697

    This doesn't include depreciation costs of course but point being mass produced wide body airliners have very economical operating costs. And a bomber configuration of a 777 would be able to carry over 100 tons of bombs.

    If operations research suggest the 777 is too large for my proposal then the 787 would be an excellent choice.

    No 737 MAX bombers please!

    In an air to air fighter configuration the F-35 carries exactly the same amount of weapons as the F-16. I assert that for this reason, when comparing dogfighting abilities, the fully loaded number is only somewhat meaningful for the F-16 (because it’s fully loaded already in an air to air configuration), but totally meaningless for the F-35. This number punishes the F-35 for its extra ability to cheaply bomb Afghani or Somali tribesmen, when in fact it’s irrelevant to dogfighting.

    Now in a dogfight the most realistic is actually a lightly loaded number for the F-16 with just a couple short range missiles (theoretically the BVR missiles had already been shot), but dogfighting could come as a surprise while carrying BVR weapons (maybe against enemy stealth planes), so maybe the full air to air configuration makes sense.

    I don’t understand why this simple point (that they should be compared with the same weapons, and not punish the F-35 for its extra ability to cheaply bomb third worlders) is so difficult to accept.
     

    That's a fair point and not one that it was clear to me you were making.

    So then we would want to use the A2A weight of both types. I don't have data for this but I'll bet that thrust-to-weight is then similar. Wing loading would still be worse for the F-35A, but I see that Lockheed Martin does claim the F-35's fuselage provides more lift than the F-16 (also supplied by LMCO).

    So perhaps the F-35A in an A2A role is actually aerodynamically comparable to an F-16C, which isn't bad at all. And if the promised "sensor fusion" works the pilot would have superior situational awareness despite the inferior cockpit visibility. Cockpit visibility matters, but it obviously isn't everything as evidenced by Luftwaffe aces racking up hundreds of kills in the Me-109. LMCO and the Chair Force would no doubt point out that the EODAS in the F-35 makes a surprise "bounce" from the rear unlikely.


    By the way the celebrated Chinese 5th gen fighters have zero dogfighting abilities, because they don’t even have machine guns.
     
    A dubious design decision, but it doesn't mean zero dogfighting abilities. During the Vietnam War American pilots got into dogfights without guns (and quickly learned that they needed guns, but they still fought). Modern missiles are a lot better than ones from the 1960s (something Pierre Sprey never learned), so some people think guns can be deleted again. The RAF also ordered its Eurofighter Typhoons without guns (though it now equips Typhoons with them for A2G missions).

    A pet peeve of mine is the US' habit of equipping its fighters with inferior guns going back to 1940. The gun is the most technologically mature and reliable A2A weapon, so it's not like an excellent gun couldn't be designed at a reasonable cost. Or one could be selected from Europe like the GIAT 30/M791 or the Oerlikon KCA.

    In the end I agree with you that the F-35 is fine and not a "turkey", but I consider it to be a waste of resources to develop a new fighter which doesn't appear to offer improvements over our "legacy" fighters. Perhaps for our NATO allies who can only afford one combat aircraft type the F-35 is a nice choice since it offers both adequate A2A performance and substantial A2G warloads in an economical (by Western standards) aircraft.

    It's also not suitable for our Pacific allies as Air Power Australia showed.

  100. @Kimppis
    Good discussion about the Su-57 and F-35.

    Firstly: I'm not an aerodynamics expert either. And while the Su-57 program has certainly not gone 100% according to plan, those forum posts are probably BS for the most part.

    The truth regarding the F-35 is probably somewhere between the two extremes as well, as usual. On the one hand, it's most likely not this perfect symbol of AngloZionist Empire's decay, nor is the F-35 literally inferior to Sopwith Camel from WW1 (as suggested by alt-media commenters), but on the other hand, it's not the master of all trades either.

    I'll just quote Spacebattles.com user TR1, who seems to be a real expert on the Russian military. This was posted in 2019:

    That is...completely false. Literally a narrative invented by crappy English language blogs, who purposefully misread Bosirov's words as "we cant fund the Su-57" when in reality all he said is "current planes are good so we have no reason to rush the development schedule".

    There is zero indication the program is starved for money. It is in full development, they are just waiting on izd 30 to be ready to launch production en-masse. If we compare timelines even to Su-27, Su-57 is not really late or super behin schedule.
    They would not be testing it alongside Ohotnik [the drone] if they were barely able to keep the program afloat.
    As for exports, it is Rostec basically saying "yeah I think they will offer it for export soon", which means nothing for actual export contracts right now (Knaaz is still making making a production line) and says nothing about a desperation to sell. It also certainly does not mean they will sell to anyone.

    The Pak-fa has always been a priority program, and the Russian defense budget is still robust.
    People just looked at GPV 2011-2020 and thought the "60 PAK-FA" in it actually meant contracts, when really it was a vague force intention that had little to do with Sukohi's actual pace.
    From the start of the program I figured there would not be appreciable numbers until post 2020, and that is exactly how it is coming together.
     
    When it comes to vs. NATO comparisons, Russia's very modern IADS must be taken into account as well. Not to mention that by the end 2020 Russia will technically have more than a "few" hundred modern fighters. My calculations, roughly:

    12 (or is it 2?) Su-57, 100 Su-35, 160 Su-30, 100+ upgraded Su-27, 60 (?) MiG 29K/SMT/MiG-35, 120 MiG-31BM, 150 Su-34. That's more than 700 aircraft, and it doesn't include some MiG-31Ks or Su-33s (to be upgraded).

    Even without the IADS, that would clearly be the 3rd strongest air force in the world. Russophile triggering: "3RD STRONGEST!?!? IT'S ONLY THE AMERICANS AND US! IT'S FOREVER 2008 IN THE CHINESE AIR FORCE! MUH ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES." (Anyone who gets the reference, that debate between Karlin and Martyanov was hilarious, I only read it a few days ago.) Now to be fair, one could still plausibly rank Russia above China in 2020, after all Russia's IADS and bomber fleet remain superior, but the overall conclusion would objectively be far from obvious.

    I do agree that they better get their shit together with the Su-57 procurement by the mid-2020s, but overall you can't ask for much more than that, all things considered.

    I was unsure if I should count the MiG-31s and Su-34s, because I was more thinking in terms of air superiority roles – what can Russia field against NATO air forces if there was a danger of conflict?

    I think the danger of nuclear war exists mostly because Western politicians (and to a large extent generals) don’t take Russian conventional abilities seriously. Now with Westerners fielding several hundreds of F-35s annually (I don’t know if you followed the discussion, but in my opinion it’s obvious that the F-35 is very good in BVR combat and, at least when it has numerical superiority, probably can hold its own in WVR combat, too), in addition to the already formidable and numerically superior existing fleet of modern fighters and the purchases of some additional 4th gen fighters in many countries (Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, now Poland is buying something, though it could easily be F-35, Hungary is likely to expand its air force, though, again, it could easily be the F-35), and it’s pretty obvious that the people advocating for brinkmanship do have a point: NATO will have overwhelming air superiority.

    Regarding China (I don’t know which debate of Karlin and Martyanov you’re referring to), are you aware that the Chinese 5th generation fighters have no cannons?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    A major weapon Russia would use against Western airpower would be its theater ballistic missiles like the Iskander. NATO airfields all over Central and Eastern Europe would probably be bombarded with missiles almost immediately after war began.

    Russia's extensive IADS would make deep penetration of its airspace very difficult for even high performance aircraft, and it would keep NATO tankers and AEWR planes far from contested airspace.

    Russia's fighters would in turn probably fight like the Luftwaffe did after it lost air superiority. Try to keep the force in tact and engage with superior Western forces only when they think they have a local advantage or a critical target might be attacked.

    A big question would be how well America's high-end stealth aircraft (B-2, F-22) would perform in defended Russian airspace. Will Russia's new counter-VLO radars allow them to effectively engage these aircraft?
    , @Kimppis

    I was unsure if I should count the MiG-31s and Su-34s, because I was more thinking in terms of air superiority roles – what can Russia field against NATO air forces if there was a danger of conflict?
     
    Yeah, but both are multirole aircraft with decent BVR-capabilities at least. It of course means that F-15Es etc. should be counted as well.

    Regarding China (I don’t know which debate of Karlin and Martyanov you’re referring to), are you aware that the Chinese 5th generation fighters have no cannons?
     
    Yes. Although I'm not sure that's actually confirmed. By the way, those sources and authors are questionable, to say the least. I wouldn't take people like David Axe and Alex Lockie seriously at all.

    For one thing, if I remember correctly, Andreas Rupprecht (aka Deino) has complained several times how he is constantly quoted out of context by these idiots, in order to fit into their "Chinese military is actually weak" narrative. So it probably happened again here.

    Karlin vs. Martyanov. Very entertaining, but off-topic: https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258131

    After quick browsing, this comment sounds plausible:

    That's incorrect. The J-20 has a gun compartment but no gun (according to yankeesama) currently to save weight and because firing the gun damages the stealth coating. The weight and paint issues will be sorted out in the future. It would be ludicrous for the J-20 - primarily an air-superiority fighter - not to have a close-range weapon for going up against enemy stealth fighters.
     
    And:

    Why is this even an point of argument? The source that claimed that the J-20 has no gun also stated that the aircraft has a space for a cannon should the need arise.

    It is merely an issue of installing a cannon if a sortie requires such armament.
     
    Even this is better than most articles on National Interest or Business Insider (lmao):
    https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/2019/03/10/advanced-helmet-pl-10-missile-ensure-j-20s-killing-of-f-35-f-22/

    So basically his argument is that J-20's advanced helmet + the short-range PL-10 missile is the winning combo.

    In any case, the "Chinese 5th gen fighters have zero dogfighting abilities" clickbait is obviously total nonsense.

    You have good points, and some people take their wishful thinking regarding the F-35 a little too far, but I think you are too pessimistic. I really don't think the F-35 is a silver bullet, no matter how many hundreds are churned out annually. And some F-35 critics argue that while the plane itself isn't that expensive anymore, its maintenance requirements in general are so demanding and costly that the sortie and availability rates are... bad. There's probably at least some truth to that, especially when we are talking about smaller countries and air forces.

    That said, with the current and planned production rates, if we assume the F-35 is anywhere near as good as advertised, it would basically mean that the US is becoming militarily and technologically more dominant, even vs. China. (One major caveat: their very vulnerable basing? But that's it? They would actually be dominant once in the air?) But that is not supported by almost any other indicator or military program. Or is it? There's one that comes close, though. It's the "China can't into nuclear subs, EVER" meme, but it's even more obviously false, in my opinion.

    And if that's the case, China (and even the US? Or Russia) wouldn't still be procuring very large numbers of 4.5th gen fighters. Interestingly, it would also mean that in a hypothetical conflict between the UK and France (near equals), for example, the latter would be at a massive disadvantage, as only a few F-35 would wipe the floor with 4.5th gen Rafales (at least theoretically, as long as the F-35s wouldn't run out of missiles). That makes no sense. Now there are probably better examples, and you could argue that the comparison is stupid because France is not attempting to challenge "The Empire" and is in many ways just a vassal, so it doesn't count, but still.

    Lastly, we have Turkey's S-400 deal. It's almost as if Turkey chose the S-400 over the F-35 + Patriot? I don't think it's necessarily that simple (or rather, it obviously isn't), but such a conclusion wouldn't be too ludicrous at all. Or how dumb are the Turks?

    Almost forgot the bombers. Russia is not only "prioritizing" the Tu-160 over the Su-57 program (I'm not sure it's actually true though, hence the "") , but as I pointed out in my previous post, Russia has prioritized multirole Su-30s (which are replacing some of the remaining Su-24s) and fighter bombers Su-34 over the air-to-air focused Su-35s as well. And yes, they are planning to deeply modernize some Tu-22Ms and even Su-25s too. The Russian military must have good reasons for that?
  101. @Boswald Bollocksworth
    Without being a pilot or an engineer I want to have some humility evaluating the F-35 question. From what I can see, it is the disaster many claim. Here's how I arrive at this:

    1. Pierre Sprey makes what sounds like a good argument, in this debate, the USAF pilot he argues with resorts to marketing talking points and emotional arguments. Sprey uses only technical arguments. This means there are no good answers to Sprey's points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pgiq-TlmSo

    2. The Russians aren't too worried about it. Russia has the SU 57 project, but they are taking their time. I wonder if the SU 57 isn't more an effort to understand the properties of a stealthy, internal weapons bay fighter, in order to develop asymmetrical responses to it.

    3. The Turks would rather have S-400s than F-35s. Turkey has a modern air force, they certainly can evaluate these planes. They've concluded the S-400 is more important for them than the F-35

    4. The USAF is buying modernized F-15s and the F-21 (sooped up F-16) project, on offer to India, might also be an indication that Lockheed sees a potential market for an upgraded F-16 in other countries.

    F-35 is a plane designed by committee to show off technology and run up big bills. Its main advantage is its supposed stealth and information sharing across planes. As soon as non-gay countries figure out how to reliably see it on radar (and maybe they have already) the F-35 becomes merely a slow jet with stumpy wings, high maintenance needs and small payload. In the chaos of war against a competent opponent, all this PR spin about the benefits of sharing info might be out the window.

    Soft American pilots will be shitting their pants and wishing they were at a winebar with their henpecking wives the moment they start losing planes to cheap Russian and Chinese made SAMs in the event of a dust up. The future belongs to drones, SAMs and computer controlled AAA.

    Soft American pilots will be shitting their pants and wishing they were at a winebar with their henpecking wives the moment they start losing planes to cheap Russian and Chinese made SAMs in the event of a dust up.

    American pilots have on average still more flight hours under their belts than Russian (though maybe not Chinese?) pilots, so I don’t think this is more than just wishful thinking on the part of someone who dislikes the Globohomo Empire and wishes that it was weak.

    The future belongs to drones, SAMs and computer controlled AAA.

    The F-35 is the most heavily computerized airplane to date. For a long time it was extremely difficult to fix its software because of this. Full computer control will be a still way harder nut to crack. And it’s not like Russia is at the cutting edge of drone development either. Regarding SAMs, I’m still somewhat underwhelmed by their performance to date. Though obviously we haven’t seen the most modern SAMs operated by the most competent personnel against the most modern aircraft operated by equally competent personnel, so we don’t know.

  102. @Anatoly Karlin
    Okay, thanks for the explanation. As I said I don't actively follow this, so have no strong opinion of my own.

    Speculation: Perhaps they are unwilling to commit to 5th gen mass fighter production in general - it's expensive, after all, and Russia does not, presumably, plan to fight a large-scale conventional war with the US. And by the time it comes online in enough numbers to make a difference, there's a good chance that drones will rule the skies anyway.

    by the time it comes online in enough numbers to make a difference, there’s a good chance that drones will rule the skies anyway

    I don’t think it’s so easy to just skip a full generation. For example those supersonic drones (I think they are currently as slow as Great War biplanes…) will also need to be even more stealthy than current planes, and how can they be if you have skipped decades of experience designing, producing and operating such planes? It takes lots of money and time to catch up with this kind of experience.

    But anyway, as I wrote, currently existing drones are so slow (and require human control from nearby anyway), that it’s very likely that the next generation of aircraft will still be flown by human pilots.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Existing drones are slow because they're intended for use in permissive environments.

    There's no reason you can't built a high performance drone. The Air Force is currently developing a new heavy bomber which reportedly will feature "optional manning". That is to say it will be a manned combat aircraft which can fly autonomously.

    During the Cold War US SR-71s could launch a Mach 3 drone (they were called Remotely Piloted Vehicles or RPVs then) reconnaissance aircraft called the Lockheed D-21.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21#Specifications_(D-21)

    The Soviet Buran space shuttle was also capable of autonomous flight.

    And if you think about it guided missiles are drones. They just don't return to base. The Swedish word for a guided missile is in fact "robot".

    The issue with combat drones is that obviously remote-controlled combat aircraft would be useless against Russia or any other modern country. The communications links would simply be jammed. This was observed already in the Second World War when the Anglo-Americans responded to German guided anti-shipping bombs with radio jamming.

    Effective combat drones would need to be able to autonomously replace a human pilot. The challenge here is in "artificial intelligence" research, which historically has always promised more than it delivers. If self-driving cars reach a high level of maturity then we can expect autonomous combat aircraft (and other weapons) as realistic.

  103. @Thorfinnsson
    The F-35 program started in 1993.

    PAK-FA progress has been reasonable, especially in light of the limited resources allocated to the project.

    The F-35’s technology demonstrator, the X-35 first flew in 2001, 8 years after the start of the program. That’d be December 2010 for the Su-57. The first F-35 up to serial production standards flew in late 2006, so only five years after the first flight of the X-35. Yet the Russians, over eight years after the first flight of their technology demonstrator, have still failed to create a real working prototype of the final version of their plane with the same engine, avionics, weapons, everything.

    It’s also worth noting that the F-35 program was way more complex, because it was the simultaneous development of three planes, and the program had to take into account the requirements of all three. (I agree with you that it probably won’t be able to replace the A-10 Warthog, but those requirements probably slowed down production still further.) Its software was also complex to an unprecedented degree, which is obviously not the case with the Su-57, and this caused most of the problems with it.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The F-35 program was launched with "concurrence". Production began before the aircraft was ready, with problems to be fixed in service. The F-35 that flies today has many differences from the F-35 that flew in 2006 or even just a few years ago. The Russians didn't pursue concurrence because that's a scam intended to enrich contractors which you should only pursue in wartime.

    If you want to see a very humorous example of concurrence gone wrong take a look at the disastrous M247 Sergeant York program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York


    In February 1982 the prototype was demonstrated for a group of US and British officers at Fort Bliss, along with members of Congress and other VIPs. When the computer was activated, it immediately started aiming the guns at the review stands, causing several minor injuries as members of the group jumped for cover.
     
    The biggest problem with the Su-57 program appears to be developing the next generation jet engine. Jet engines are extremely expensive and difficult to develop, and Russia lags the West in jet engine technology. Russia also lags in fighter radars, which is why the Su-35 for instance has a passively scanned electronic array rather than an actively scanned one. These were first fielded in the West (or actually, Japan) on fighter aircraft in the 1990s.

    The F-35 obviously isn't a replacement for the A-10 at all and claims that it is are transparently ridiculous. The Air Force has simply always resented the A-10 for various reasons, though they're probably right about the A-10's survivability for its original mission being questionable. The remaining A-10s should simply be transferred to the Army, Marine Corps, and Air National Guard.
  104. I just read an explanation, though. The new Russian defense plan is intended to focus on deficiencies in other areas: they would like to improve their tanker fleet (a weakness already in Soviet times), AEW&C (A-100, “Russian AWACS”, this time probably similar to E3 abilities), and transportation capabilities. Probably all three are important.

    The one thing I don’t understand is the development of the bomber fleet (Tu-160M2), but it might be an asymmetrical response to Western air superiority: perhaps their role would be to destroy or disable the airports (including carriers?) with standoff weapons.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Do you recommend them to abandon their bomber fleet?
    , @Thorfinnsson
    The Tu-160 is a strategic bomber. Its mission is to launch long-range supersonic nuclear armed cruise missiles from standoff range.

    Russia has also used it in the conventional bombing role in Syria.

    It's not equipped or trained for an anti-shipping mission, but I bet they're considering that. The Su-34 after all is.

    The Russians are also reportedly developing a replacement called the PAK-DA. This is supposed to be a supersonic stealth bomber.
  105. @for-the-record
    But I can see that there’s really a big difference in nutritional value between the caged and free range chicken eggs!

    Caveat emptor:

    https://cdn.thepennyhoarder.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/12165504/EGG-GRAPHIC-TEST-02-03-01.jpg

    https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/food/cage-free-vs-free-range-vs-pastured-eggs/

    very useful, ty

  106. @reiner Tor
    I just read an explanation, though. The new Russian defense plan is intended to focus on deficiencies in other areas: they would like to improve their tanker fleet (a weakness already in Soviet times), AEW&C (A-100, “Russian AWACS”, this time probably similar to E3 abilities), and transportation capabilities. Probably all three are important.

    The one thing I don’t understand is the development of the bomber fleet (Tu-160M2), but it might be an asymmetrical response to Western air superiority: perhaps their role would be to destroy or disable the airports (including carriers?) with standoff weapons.

    Do you recommend them to abandon their bomber fleet?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    No, but I thought that because they are more offensive weapons, the development of air superiority fighters should take precedence over the production of new bombers.

    The utility of building the Tu-160M2 (as opposed to upgrading the existing fleet) is questionable anyway in my opinion. It’s arguably not a very modern delivery platform anyway, but it’s still horribly expensive, and even technically difficult. They also have several dozens or even hundreds of unmodernized Tu-22M strategic bombers, some in service, many many more in reserve, which could be modernized, too, if there really is a need for more bombers.

    So why prioritize the Tu-160M2 production (which will be a slow program fraught with difficulties anyway) over either modernization of the existing bomber fleet or finally finishing the currently largely on hold Su-57 program?
  107. @Mitleser
    Do you recommend them to abandon their bomber fleet?

    No, but I thought that because they are more offensive weapons, the development of air superiority fighters should take precedence over the production of new bombers.

    The utility of building the Tu-160M2 (as opposed to upgrading the existing fleet) is questionable anyway in my opinion. It’s arguably not a very modern delivery platform anyway, but it’s still horribly expensive, and even technically difficult. They also have several dozens or even hundreds of unmodernized Tu-22M strategic bombers, some in service, many many more in reserve, which could be modernized, too, if there really is a need for more bombers.

    So why prioritize the Tu-160M2 production (which will be a slow program fraught with difficulties anyway) over either modernization of the existing bomber fleet or finally finishing the currently largely on hold Su-57 program?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Russia prioritizes its strategic forces over everything else. Hence why they continually introduced new and improved ICBMs even when they were dirt poor. They also introduced a new boomer sub.

    The Tu-160 is the highest performance bomber ever designed. It carries a massive warload and is extremely difficult to intercept.

    The Su-57 can hunt F-22s. The Tu-160 can hunt cities.

    PGMs have also made heavy bombers very useful in the tactical role as demonstrated by American B-1Bs in Afghanistan.

    That said, I'm sure non-military reasons come into play. The Tu-160 is prestigious and awe inspiring, and probably they want to support the Tupolev Bureau.

    , @Mitleser
    How old are the air frames of the heavy bombers and how long would the VKS wait for new ones if the state would not invest right now into the production of new air frames?

    modernization of the existing bomber
     
    http://tass.com/defense/1051231

    http://tass.com/defense/1038351
  108. @songbird
    That's right - the sun or feed.

    thing is the artificial vitamin D they put in supplements (and i assume feed) is made from mushrooms and they say it works exactly the same but i haven’t tested that myself.

  109. My problem is that there often doesn’t seem to be any forward thinking or a development strategy, instead they keep starting ever newer grandiose programs, but then usually fail to finish them. Maybe the Tu-160M2 program is better or more useful than the Su-57 (I fail to see why, though), but then why didn’t they prioritize it ten years ago, before they sank untold billions into the PAK FA project? I remember having read already around 2007-8 about restarting the production of the Tu-160, and then they finally finished an unfinished airframe left from Soviet times last year.

    It appears to me that Russian defense procurement is driven by a combination of lobbies and the idiotic and constantly changing ideas of politicians lacking minimal foresight or expertise.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    So you're saying Russian defense procurement is driven by the same political pressures as defense procurement in all other countries?

    Being American I can tick off a massive list of cartoonish procurement failures. The Army hasn't produced a good infantry rifle since the 1930s. Our new aircraft carrier can't even launch or recover aircraft.

    Even during WW2 there were procurement fiascos in nearly all belligerent countries. Heinkel for instance was upset about being forced to produce Ju-88 wings and slow walked production until the RLM allowed them to instead produce the unreliable He-177. The US Navy equipped its submarines with dysfunctional torpedoes and punished officers who complained. Japan had bizarre rivalry between its navy and air force (except, oddly, on radar development) who refused to use each other's weapons. The USSR had the then useless MiG bureau turning out unsuitable fighters.

    Britain actually comes out looking good here as I can't really think of any British wartime procurement debacles (but perhaps our British commenters can).
    , @Dmitry
    Tu-160 program is related to nuclear strategic deterrent, as one of the main nuclear weapons delivery systems, so this probably is why it might possibly have higher prioritization (if this is the case) than Su-57 project.

    For defense of airspace above the country, there are constant purchases of Su-35S, which will continue for years. In addition there is heavy investment in radars. Airspace will be heavily defended already before Su-57 begins its larger production from the mid-2020s.

    I'm not sure this is that different for USA. Projects related nuclear strategic deterrent, might have first priority in funding in America, compared to conventional weapons.

    But America's annual military budget is almost ten times higher, so there would be less conflicts of funding. It's easy to forget today, since the end of the USSR, Russia is a "great power" (along with UK and France), while only America still has military spending of "super-power", where it probably does not have to worry about prioritizing its nuclear strategy spending above its conventional weapons.

  110. @reiner Tor
    I'm not sure my point came across.

    The F-35 is theoretically capable of carrying almost triple the weapons load as the F-16. This is only fully used in strike missions with zero danger of enemy air force or air defense activity. This is a big advantage for countries which often fight third world tribesmen like Afghanis (the US is one such country), because it's much cheaper to deliver the same amount of weapons in one mission than it is to carry them in three separate missions.

    In an air to air fighter configuration the F-35 carries exactly the same amount of weapons as the F-16. I assert that for this reason, when comparing dogfighting abilities, the fully loaded number is only somewhat meaningful for the F-16 (because it's fully loaded already in an air to air configuration), but totally meaningless for the F-35. This number punishes the F-35 for its extra ability to cheaply bomb Afghani or Somali tribesmen, when in fact it's irrelevant to dogfighting.

    Now in a dogfight the most realistic is actually a lightly loaded number for the F-16 with just a couple short range missiles (theoretically the BVR missiles had already been shot), but dogfighting could come as a surprise while carrying BVR weapons (maybe against enemy stealth planes), so maybe the full air to air configuration makes sense.

    I don't understand why this simple point (that they should be compared with the same weapons, and not punish the F-35 for its extra ability to cheaply bomb third worlders) is so difficult to accept.

    By the way the celebrated Chinese 5th gen fighters have zero dogfighting abilities, because they don't even have machine guns.

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/problem-chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-doesnt-have-gun-40402

    The F-35 is theoretically capable of carrying almost triple the weapons load as the F-16. This is only fully used in strike missions with zero danger of enemy air force or air defense activity. This is a big advantage for countries which often fight third world tribesmen like Afghanis (the US is one such country), because it’s much cheaper to deliver the same amount of weapons in one mission than it is to carry them in three separate missions.

    Cost per flying hour of the F-35A is 2-3x higher than the F-16.

    http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21776/f-35-cheaper/

    The F-35’s frontal stealth and internal weapons carriage are intended to briefly penetrate defended airspace, bomb a target, and withdraw. The ability to carry external stores is good of course, but the aircraft isn’t a bomb truck for colonial wars (though it might get a lot of use in that mission). Bear in mind that the JSF project was launched before America launched its stupid Forever War.

    The US also already has the F-15E for this role. The F-15E can carry more weapons than an F-35A. This aircraft has also been exported to South Korea and Singapore (with various upgrades), so it’s not a US-only type. And the Chair Force is now proposing to order more F-15Es with their F-15X proposal.

    A better choice in permissive environments is a heavy bomber.

    The B-1B and B-52H cost only 50% more per hour than the F-35A to fly as you can see. A fully loaded out B-1B (including external stores) can carry sixty tons of bombs.

    I’ve suggested before that we make use of wide body airliners for missions like this. A very large order should be placed with Boeing for a large fleet of 777s for transport, tanker, AEWR, ELINT, maritime patrol, and bomber missions.

    http://what2fly.com/manufacturer/operating_cost/Boeing/777/1697

    This doesn’t include depreciation costs of course but point being mass produced wide body airliners have very economical operating costs. And a bomber configuration of a 777 would be able to carry over 100 tons of bombs.

    If operations research suggest the 777 is too large for my proposal then the 787 would be an excellent choice.

    No 737 MAX bombers please!

    In an air to air fighter configuration the F-35 carries exactly the same amount of weapons as the F-16. I assert that for this reason, when comparing dogfighting abilities, the fully loaded number is only somewhat meaningful for the F-16 (because it’s fully loaded already in an air to air configuration), but totally meaningless for the F-35. This number punishes the F-35 for its extra ability to cheaply bomb Afghani or Somali tribesmen, when in fact it’s irrelevant to dogfighting.

    Now in a dogfight the most realistic is actually a lightly loaded number for the F-16 with just a couple short range missiles (theoretically the BVR missiles had already been shot), but dogfighting could come as a surprise while carrying BVR weapons (maybe against enemy stealth planes), so maybe the full air to air configuration makes sense.

    I don’t understand why this simple point (that they should be compared with the same weapons, and not punish the F-35 for its extra ability to cheaply bomb third worlders) is so difficult to accept.

    That’s a fair point and not one that it was clear to me you were making.

    So then we would want to use the A2A weight of both types. I don’t have data for this but I’ll bet that thrust-to-weight is then similar. Wing loading would still be worse for the F-35A, but I see that Lockheed Martin does claim the F-35’s fuselage provides more lift than the F-16 (also supplied by LMCO).

    So perhaps the F-35A in an A2A role is actually aerodynamically comparable to an F-16C, which isn’t bad at all. And if the promised “sensor fusion” works the pilot would have superior situational awareness despite the inferior cockpit visibility. Cockpit visibility matters, but it obviously isn’t everything as evidenced by Luftwaffe aces racking up hundreds of kills in the Me-109. LMCO and the Chair Force would no doubt point out that the EODAS in the F-35 makes a surprise “bounce” from the rear unlikely.

    By the way the celebrated Chinese 5th gen fighters have zero dogfighting abilities, because they don’t even have machine guns.

    A dubious design decision, but it doesn’t mean zero dogfighting abilities. During the Vietnam War American pilots got into dogfights without guns (and quickly learned that they needed guns, but they still fought). Modern missiles are a lot better than ones from the 1960s (something Pierre Sprey never learned), so some people think guns can be deleted again. The RAF also ordered its Eurofighter Typhoons without guns (though it now equips Typhoons with them for A2G missions).

    A pet peeve of mine is the US’ habit of equipping its fighters with inferior guns going back to 1940. The gun is the most technologically mature and reliable A2A weapon, so it’s not like an excellent gun couldn’t be designed at a reasonable cost. Or one could be selected from Europe like the GIAT 30/M791 or the Oerlikon KCA.

    In the end I agree with you that the F-35 is fine and not a “turkey”, but I consider it to be a waste of resources to develop a new fighter which doesn’t appear to offer improvements over our “legacy” fighters. Perhaps for our NATO allies who can only afford one combat aircraft type the F-35 is a nice choice since it offers both adequate A2A performance and substantial A2G warloads in an economical (by Western standards) aircraft.

    It’s also not suitable for our Pacific allies as Air Power Australia showed.

  111. Ron made some comment on another thread that had me thinking. He was talking about the potential bad influence of America on China and how the Chinese had had the foresight to limit it with movie quotas and blocking the internet.

    This made me wonder, since many of the Chinese I have known seem to have been pretty familiar with Hollywood cultural outputs, including some old movies and some old American TV shows. I even recall some years ago, hearing some English teacher saying he had Chinese students that spoke like the Dukes of Hazard (some TV old show, set in the South). Maybe, these are not typical Chinese.

    Not to mention, the quota movies can sometimes be diversitarian – so it seems like they are blocking mostly on economics, not politics.

    So I wonder, how much of Hollywood makes it into China, beyond the movie theater quotas? Like, how much would be on normal TV? And how much of it would be in English, if any? How would Chinese be familiar with old american TV shows – is this just DVD and internet piracy, or did they play on TV?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    China pursues the Joe Goebbels strategy of forcing Hollywood to make any films it permits in its market conform to Chinese ideological requirements. Unsure about TV production, but Chinese TV budgets are huge so I doubt they import that much foreign TV content.

    A big problem for China now is that Japanese anime is conquering the hearts of their youth: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/23/super-patriotic-anime-youth-wars-china-japan-pop-culture/
    , @LondonBob
    Movies are censored in China, in the Hangover the part with the naked Asian guy in the car boot if cut out of the film, so even those approved are then edited. The Chinese are right that the film and TV industry are a real danger.
    , @Hyperborean

    Not to mention, the quota movies can sometimes be diversitarian – so it seems like they are blocking mostly on economics, not politics.

    So I wonder, how much of Hollywood makes it into China, beyond the movie theater quotas? Like, how much would be on normal TV? And how much of it would be in English, if any? How would Chinese be familiar with old american TV shows – is this just DVD and internet piracy, or did they play on TV?
     
    Obviously, they won't allow anything that depicts the PRC as the villain or questions regime's dogma on sensitive historical or territorial questions (although this is not so much of a problem for them now that Hollywood is dependent on the large Chinese market).

    However, for ordinary films, they will mostly censor scenes within a film or TV series if it contains what they deem to be too much violence or sexuality (both straight and the LGBT variant).

    Some diversitarian films in the cinemas I can recall acquaintances discussing are the We wuz kangs version of The Nutcracker, various SJW-ised American superhero films and, I think, Wakanda.

    Now, I have less familiarity with what's show on TV than I have even on cinema, however, I have the impression the foreign material that is shown is not so much, however what is shown is mostly Chinese-dubbed versions of classic innocuous Japanese (Detective Conan, Doraemon) and American (Tom and Jerry) cartoons.

    However, many foreign films and TV shows, including some old ones (ex. it seems Dukes of Hazzard are available on both iQiyi and Youku, albeit with VIP subscriptions), are available on streaming services like iQiyi, Youku (like YouTube) and Bilibili (mostly East Asian cartoons but also some American ones) that are either free or charge a small subscription fee to access VIP material.

    Then there is also old-fashioned plain piracy.

    That doesn't mean the authorities don't shut down specific films or series sometimes, but overall it seems to be rather few restrictions beyond what I mentioned.

    Of course, many people will also have VPN, bypassing restrictions completely.
    , @Anonymous
    Apparently there are still some holdover regulations on the media from the Cultural Revolution; for example, movies that depict supernatural entities such as ghosts are prohibited, I guess in an effort to eradicate rural superstition. The all-female Ghostbusters remake a few years ago was blocked from release in China on the pretense that it violated this rule.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-denied-release-china-910563
  112. @reiner Tor
    I was unsure if I should count the MiG-31s and Su-34s, because I was more thinking in terms of air superiority roles - what can Russia field against NATO air forces if there was a danger of conflict?

    I think the danger of nuclear war exists mostly because Western politicians (and to a large extent generals) don't take Russian conventional abilities seriously. Now with Westerners fielding several hundreds of F-35s annually (I don't know if you followed the discussion, but in my opinion it's obvious that the F-35 is very good in BVR combat and, at least when it has numerical superiority, probably can hold its own in WVR combat, too), in addition to the already formidable and numerically superior existing fleet of modern fighters and the purchases of some additional 4th gen fighters in many countries (Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, now Poland is buying something, though it could easily be F-35, Hungary is likely to expand its air force, though, again, it could easily be the F-35), and it's pretty obvious that the people advocating for brinkmanship do have a point: NATO will have overwhelming air superiority.

    Regarding China (I don't know which debate of Karlin and Martyanov you're referring to), are you aware that the Chinese 5th generation fighters have no cannons?

    A major weapon Russia would use against Western airpower would be its theater ballistic missiles like the Iskander. NATO airfields all over Central and Eastern Europe would probably be bombarded with missiles almost immediately after war began.

    Russia’s extensive IADS would make deep penetration of its airspace very difficult for even high performance aircraft, and it would keep NATO tankers and AEWR planes far from contested airspace.

    Russia’s fighters would in turn probably fight like the Luftwaffe did after it lost air superiority. Try to keep the force in tact and engage with superior Western forces only when they think they have a local advantage or a critical target might be attacked.

    A big question would be how well America’s high-end stealth aircraft (B-2, F-22) would perform in defended Russian airspace. Will Russia’s new counter-VLO radars allow them to effectively engage these aircraft?

  113. @reiner Tor

    by the time it comes online in enough numbers to make a difference, there’s a good chance that drones will rule the skies anyway
     
    I don't think it's so easy to just skip a full generation. For example those supersonic drones (I think they are currently as slow as Great War biplanes...) will also need to be even more stealthy than current planes, and how can they be if you have skipped decades of experience designing, producing and operating such planes? It takes lots of money and time to catch up with this kind of experience.

    But anyway, as I wrote, currently existing drones are so slow (and require human control from nearby anyway), that it's very likely that the next generation of aircraft will still be flown by human pilots.

    Existing drones are slow because they’re intended for use in permissive environments.

    There’s no reason you can’t built a high performance drone. The Air Force is currently developing a new heavy bomber which reportedly will feature “optional manning”. That is to say it will be a manned combat aircraft which can fly autonomously.

    During the Cold War US SR-71s could launch a Mach 3 drone (they were called Remotely Piloted Vehicles or RPVs then) reconnaissance aircraft called the Lockheed D-21.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21#Specifications_(D-21)

    The Soviet Buran space shuttle was also capable of autonomous flight.

    And if you think about it guided missiles are drones. They just don’t return to base. The Swedish word for a guided missile is in fact “robot”.

    The issue with combat drones is that obviously remote-controlled combat aircraft would be useless against Russia or any other modern country. The communications links would simply be jammed. This was observed already in the Second World War when the Anglo-Americans responded to German guided anti-shipping bombs with radio jamming.

    Effective combat drones would need to be able to autonomously replace a human pilot. The challenge here is in “artificial intelligence” research, which historically has always promised more than it delivers. If self-driving cars reach a high level of maturity then we can expect autonomous combat aircraft (and other weapons) as realistic.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Flying is much easier than driving, so one of the things I never understood is why isn't flight AI so much more advanced than driving AI (which can already reliably navigate congested city streets).
    , @songbird
    I see a lot of future potential in drones:

    Without much AI, you could program them ahead of time. They could navigate like birds even without GPS, or secure communications. Their targets would be pre-selected - easy to do with the kind of spy sats that exist now.

    Their instructions would be basic, mathematical - destroy all planes and hangers on airbase - destroy all ships that look like X, Y , or Z in zone 25. Even unarmed ones could potentially seriously change the amount of intel gathered.

    There are so many potential strengths. They could accelerate faster than pilots, require shorter runways. Information is duplicative, so they would not need to be trained, only built. They would be cheaper. There could be swarms of them. You could really minimize the factor of unit cost and steamroll your enemies with shear numbers.

    I think the main hurdles are political. It is the same with the deployment of non-deadly weapons.
  114. @reiner Tor
    The F-35's technology demonstrator, the X-35 first flew in 2001, 8 years after the start of the program. That'd be December 2010 for the Su-57. The first F-35 up to serial production standards flew in late 2006, so only five years after the first flight of the X-35. Yet the Russians, over eight years after the first flight of their technology demonstrator, have still failed to create a real working prototype of the final version of their plane with the same engine, avionics, weapons, everything.

    It's also worth noting that the F-35 program was way more complex, because it was the simultaneous development of three planes, and the program had to take into account the requirements of all three. (I agree with you that it probably won't be able to replace the A-10 Warthog, but those requirements probably slowed down production still further.) Its software was also complex to an unprecedented degree, which is obviously not the case with the Su-57, and this caused most of the problems with it.

    The F-35 program was launched with “concurrence”. Production began before the aircraft was ready, with problems to be fixed in service. The F-35 that flies today has many differences from the F-35 that flew in 2006 or even just a few years ago. The Russians didn’t pursue concurrence because that’s a scam intended to enrich contractors which you should only pursue in wartime.

    If you want to see a very humorous example of concurrence gone wrong take a look at the disastrous M247 Sergeant York program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York

    In February 1982 the prototype was demonstrated for a group of US and British officers at Fort Bliss, along with members of Congress and other VIPs. When the computer was activated, it immediately started aiming the guns at the review stands, causing several minor injuries as members of the group jumped for cover.

    The biggest problem with the Su-57 program appears to be developing the next generation jet engine. Jet engines are extremely expensive and difficult to develop, and Russia lags the West in jet engine technology. Russia also lags in fighter radars, which is why the Su-35 for instance has a passively scanned electronic array rather than an actively scanned one. These were first fielded in the West (or actually, Japan) on fighter aircraft in the 1990s.

    The F-35 obviously isn’t a replacement for the A-10 at all and claims that it is are transparently ridiculous. The Air Force has simply always resented the A-10 for various reasons, though they’re probably right about the A-10’s survivability for its original mission being questionable. The remaining A-10s should simply be transferred to the Army, Marine Corps, and Air National Guard.

  115. @reiner Tor
    I just read an explanation, though. The new Russian defense plan is intended to focus on deficiencies in other areas: they would like to improve their tanker fleet (a weakness already in Soviet times), AEW&C (A-100, “Russian AWACS”, this time probably similar to E3 abilities), and transportation capabilities. Probably all three are important.

    The one thing I don’t understand is the development of the bomber fleet (Tu-160M2), but it might be an asymmetrical response to Western air superiority: perhaps their role would be to destroy or disable the airports (including carriers?) with standoff weapons.

    The Tu-160 is a strategic bomber. Its mission is to launch long-range supersonic nuclear armed cruise missiles from standoff range.

    Russia has also used it in the conventional bombing role in Syria.

    It’s not equipped or trained for an anti-shipping mission, but I bet they’re considering that. The Su-34 after all is.

    The Russians are also reportedly developing a replacement called the PAK-DA. This is supposed to be a supersonic stealth bomber.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The Tu-160 is capable of carrying the Kh-101 missile, which is to say, attacking airports from which the F-35 could operate. I'm not sure if it can carry anti-ship missiles, but I'm pretty sure it'd be easy to do so. I remember reading that the Kinzhal was tested with the Tu-22M3 bomber. It might not be the best for the Tu-160 (it requires the plane to reach its top speed right before launch, probably it's a better fit with the MiG-31), but I'd think that if the Tu-22M3 could do that, the Tu-160 should be able to, too.
  116. @reiner Tor
    No, but I thought that because they are more offensive weapons, the development of air superiority fighters should take precedence over the production of new bombers.

    The utility of building the Tu-160M2 (as opposed to upgrading the existing fleet) is questionable anyway in my opinion. It’s arguably not a very modern delivery platform anyway, but it’s still horribly expensive, and even technically difficult. They also have several dozens or even hundreds of unmodernized Tu-22M strategic bombers, some in service, many many more in reserve, which could be modernized, too, if there really is a need for more bombers.

    So why prioritize the Tu-160M2 production (which will be a slow program fraught with difficulties anyway) over either modernization of the existing bomber fleet or finally finishing the currently largely on hold Su-57 program?

    Russia prioritizes its strategic forces over everything else. Hence why they continually introduced new and improved ICBMs even when they were dirt poor. They also introduced a new boomer sub.

    The Tu-160 is the highest performance bomber ever designed. It carries a massive warload and is extremely difficult to intercept.

    The Su-57 can hunt F-22s. The Tu-160 can hunt cities.

    PGMs have also made heavy bombers very useful in the tactical role as demonstrated by American B-1Bs in Afghanistan.

    That said, I’m sure non-military reasons come into play. The Tu-160 is prestigious and awe inspiring, and probably they want to support the Tupolev Bureau.

  117. @Thorfinnsson
    Existing drones are slow because they're intended for use in permissive environments.

    There's no reason you can't built a high performance drone. The Air Force is currently developing a new heavy bomber which reportedly will feature "optional manning". That is to say it will be a manned combat aircraft which can fly autonomously.

    During the Cold War US SR-71s could launch a Mach 3 drone (they were called Remotely Piloted Vehicles or RPVs then) reconnaissance aircraft called the Lockheed D-21.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21#Specifications_(D-21)

    The Soviet Buran space shuttle was also capable of autonomous flight.

    And if you think about it guided missiles are drones. They just don't return to base. The Swedish word for a guided missile is in fact "robot".

    The issue with combat drones is that obviously remote-controlled combat aircraft would be useless against Russia or any other modern country. The communications links would simply be jammed. This was observed already in the Second World War when the Anglo-Americans responded to German guided anti-shipping bombs with radio jamming.

    Effective combat drones would need to be able to autonomously replace a human pilot. The challenge here is in "artificial intelligence" research, which historically has always promised more than it delivers. If self-driving cars reach a high level of maturity then we can expect autonomous combat aircraft (and other weapons) as realistic.

    Flying is much easier than driving, so one of the things I never understood is why isn’t flight AI so much more advanced than driving AI (which can already reliably navigate congested city streets).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The first aircraft autopilot was fielded in 1912. Planes can takeoff, fly, and land themselves. Western pilots claim that Third World airliner pilots are inadequately trained and rely on autopilot too much.

    And I'm not sure flying is actually easier than driving. Consider takeoff, landing, inclement weather, turbulence, etc. And how does an autopilot deal with adapting to an aircraft that suffers critical component failures in flight? By "modeling" all such failures in advance? Certainly it's a lot easier to get a driver license than a pilot's license. In the US you need 20 hours of flying time just to get a sport pilot license.

    Then there are regulations. A revenue flight (i.e. one carrying passengers) needs a pilot and a copilot in all modern countries. Pilots are also fairly powerful. Any airline expressing an interest in replacing pilots would find that its pilots would go on strike, leaving the airline to pay its very expensive debt service while taking in no revenue from passengers.
  118. @reiner Tor
    My problem is that there often doesn’t seem to be any forward thinking or a development strategy, instead they keep starting ever newer grandiose programs, but then usually fail to finish them. Maybe the Tu-160M2 program is better or more useful than the Su-57 (I fail to see why, though), but then why didn’t they prioritize it ten years ago, before they sank untold billions into the PAK FA project? I remember having read already around 2007-8 about restarting the production of the Tu-160, and then they finally finished an unfinished airframe left from Soviet times last year.

    It appears to me that Russian defense procurement is driven by a combination of lobbies and the idiotic and constantly changing ideas of politicians lacking minimal foresight or expertise.

    So you’re saying Russian defense procurement is driven by the same political pressures as defense procurement in all other countries?

    Being American I can tick off a massive list of cartoonish procurement failures. The Army hasn’t produced a good infantry rifle since the 1930s. Our new aircraft carrier can’t even launch or recover aircraft.

    Even during WW2 there were procurement fiascos in nearly all belligerent countries. Heinkel for instance was upset about being forced to produce Ju-88 wings and slow walked production until the RLM allowed them to instead produce the unreliable He-177. The US Navy equipped its submarines with dysfunctional torpedoes and punished officers who complained. Japan had bizarre rivalry between its navy and air force (except, oddly, on radar development) who refused to use each other’s weapons. The USSR had the then useless MiG bureau turning out unsuitable fighters.

    Britain actually comes out looking good here as I can’t really think of any British wartime procurement debacles (but perhaps our British commenters can).

    • Replies: @216
    The Type 45 destroyers came in over budget, and the number of ships was cut in half.

    The new QE class carriers don't have enough funding for the full complement of F-35s that could potentially be carried. The less effective B-model is used instead of the more expensive C-model.

    Britain doesn't have an independent nuke deterrent, France does (The French carrier was even more of a disaster).

    The British Army rifle the L85, is inferior to the Steyr AUG that Australia uses. The SAS uses the M4 carbine. Thanks to hating the civilian population, the UK has no capacity to build its own rifles, and will probably buy the HK 416 as its replacement.
    , @reiner Tor
    Russia is so much weaker than the US that I don't think it can afford massive failures like not having adequate air superiority fighters. Though of course they could maintain their bomber fleet without new production or even major modernization for a long time, I'd think it's more important than even having a heavy bomber force. Of course they don't need to choose anyway.
  119. @Thorfinnsson
    Existing drones are slow because they're intended for use in permissive environments.

    There's no reason you can't built a high performance drone. The Air Force is currently developing a new heavy bomber which reportedly will feature "optional manning". That is to say it will be a manned combat aircraft which can fly autonomously.

    During the Cold War US SR-71s could launch a Mach 3 drone (they were called Remotely Piloted Vehicles or RPVs then) reconnaissance aircraft called the Lockheed D-21.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21#Specifications_(D-21)

    The Soviet Buran space shuttle was also capable of autonomous flight.

    And if you think about it guided missiles are drones. They just don't return to base. The Swedish word for a guided missile is in fact "robot".

    The issue with combat drones is that obviously remote-controlled combat aircraft would be useless against Russia or any other modern country. The communications links would simply be jammed. This was observed already in the Second World War when the Anglo-Americans responded to German guided anti-shipping bombs with radio jamming.

    Effective combat drones would need to be able to autonomously replace a human pilot. The challenge here is in "artificial intelligence" research, which historically has always promised more than it delivers. If self-driving cars reach a high level of maturity then we can expect autonomous combat aircraft (and other weapons) as realistic.

    I see a lot of future potential in drones:

    Without much AI, you could program them ahead of time. They could navigate like birds even without GPS, or secure communications. Their targets would be pre-selected – easy to do with the kind of spy sats that exist now.

    Their instructions would be basic, mathematical – destroy all planes and hangers on airbase – destroy all ships that look like X, Y , or Z in zone 25. Even unarmed ones could potentially seriously change the amount of intel gathered.

    There are so many potential strengths. They could accelerate faster than pilots, require shorter runways. Information is duplicative, so they would not need to be trained, only built. They would be cheaper. There could be swarms of them. You could really minimize the factor of unit cost and steamroll your enemies with shear numbers.

    I think the main hurdles are political. It is the same with the deployment of non-deadly weapons.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Without much AI, you could program them ahead of time. They could navigate like birds even without GPS, or secure communications. Their targets would be pre-selected – easy to do with the kind of spy sats that exist now.
     
    Targets move.

    The trajectory of spy satellites is known.

    Their instructions would be basic, mathematical – destroy all planes and hangers on airbase – destroy all ships that look like X, Y , or Z in zone 25. Even unarmed ones could potentially seriously change the amount of intel gathered.
     
    Reconnaissance drones are nothing new and have been used for over 50 years.

    Target identification is a sticky problem. Planes can be moved, camouflaged, etc.

    There are so many potential strengths. They could accelerate faster than pilots, require shorter runways. Information is duplicative, so they would not need to be trained, only built. They would be cheaper. There could be swarms of them. You could really minimize the factor of unit cost and steamroll your enemies with shear numbers.
     
    A high performance UCAV would still have giant engines, a big radar, lots of internal fuel, many weapons stations, etc. It would be a big, heavy, expensive aircraft.

    Some size and expense would of course be saved by deleting the cockpit and life support systems, but not that much. Just look at a photo of an F-22 and see how small the cockpit is relative to the rest of the aircraft.

    There are real personnel savings here, but that's somewhat illusory too. A UCAV still requires maintenance crews, squadron commanders, engineering support, etc. A bigger advantage is that UCAVs could go to war right off the production line without also getting a pilot through flight school which takes hundreds of hours (and requires instructors, trainer aircraft, more maintenance personnel, more bases, etc.).

    I'm a proponent of "optionally-manned" combat aircraft. If AI technology ever matures to the level its proponents claim it will, then you just cashier the pilots or switch them to desk duty. If it fails to, you still have your pilots. The AI capability would also be useful in the event pilots are incapacitated in combat or you need to send warplanes on some kind of suicide mission.


    I think the main hurdles are political. It is the same with the deployment of non-deadly weapons.
     
    Yes, and there are also labor problems. Pilots themselves object to being replaced, and pilots run most air forces.
  120. @songbird
    Ron made some comment on another thread that had me thinking. He was talking about the potential bad influence of America on China and how the Chinese had had the foresight to limit it with movie quotas and blocking the internet.

    This made me wonder, since many of the Chinese I have known seem to have been pretty familiar with Hollywood cultural outputs, including some old movies and some old American TV shows. I even recall some years ago, hearing some English teacher saying he had Chinese students that spoke like the Dukes of Hazard (some TV old show, set in the South). Maybe, these are not typical Chinese.

    Not to mention, the quota movies can sometimes be diversitarian - so it seems like they are blocking mostly on economics, not politics.

    So I wonder, how much of Hollywood makes it into China, beyond the movie theater quotas? Like, how much would be on normal TV? And how much of it would be in English, if any? How would Chinese be familiar with old american TV shows - is this just DVD and internet piracy, or did they play on TV?

    China pursues the Joe Goebbels strategy of forcing Hollywood to make any films it permits in its market conform to Chinese ideological requirements. Unsure about TV production, but Chinese TV budgets are huge so I doubt they import that much foreign TV content.

    A big problem for China now is that Japanese anime is conquering the hearts of their youth: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/23/super-patriotic-anime-youth-wars-china-japan-pop-culture/

    • Replies: @songbird
    I have heard that they have a lot of war programs on TV, with Japan naturally as the villain. I have always been a bit mystified by this. I ask myself, is this just historical political legacy - something from the Mao era that just continues? Or does it reflect a still current and existential fear for the CCP - that Chinese will become enamored of the large, homogeneous, Asian democracy on their doorstep?

    I don't know, but it seems wrong-headed to me. All their villains should be gay, black Muslims and trannies, IMO, except for the ones that are white Americans who seek to promote diversity. But from what I have read of their current guidelines, such programming would be impossible. And even if it didn't go against the current rules, there would be political/economic reasons that would probably create a hard official response against such.

    And this, of course, is a great shame, because China may be the only market that has a chance of beating Hollywood in the propaganda war against globalism.
  121. does ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting

    Jack Dorsey may be aiming for maximum mental performance. However, if he thinks he will last a long time like that he is mistaken. In all cases stick as close to what it would be in nature as you can. Over a year you have meat and the dark long nights to sleep, and in summer you can gorge on sugar and stay up late. This cheat days stuff puts the changes of a year into a week, and is a recipe for dysregulating your metabolism. To age slowly, low to moderate protein intake is key. Of course feeling good and aging slowly are not the same thing and there is every reason to believe that one diet cannot do both.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Low to moderate protein intake as a percentage of overall calories? Or in terms of absolute calories?

    Ketogenic diets and intermittent fasting mainly work by lowering overall caloric intake. Keto diets have lots of fat that sate you quickly. It's hard to stop keep on eating a bag of chips or french fries, but you can't eat much of a stick of butter without starting to feel queasy. This coupled with reduced carb intake means none of the glucose spikes from carbs that give you hunger pangs and brain fog regularly just a few hours after a carb heavy meal.

    The keto/fasting protocol is supposed to try to mimic paleolithic patterns of feast and famine, though it's unclear how accurate it is, and whether it's even optimal anyway.
  122. @Anatoly Karlin
    Flying is much easier than driving, so one of the things I never understood is why isn't flight AI so much more advanced than driving AI (which can already reliably navigate congested city streets).

    The first aircraft autopilot was fielded in 1912. Planes can takeoff, fly, and land themselves. Western pilots claim that Third World airliner pilots are inadequately trained and rely on autopilot too much.

    And I’m not sure flying is actually easier than driving. Consider takeoff, landing, inclement weather, turbulence, etc. And how does an autopilot deal with adapting to an aircraft that suffers critical component failures in flight? By “modeling” all such failures in advance? Certainly it’s a lot easier to get a driver license than a pilot’s license. In the US you need 20 hours of flying time just to get a sport pilot license.

    Then there are regulations. A revenue flight (i.e. one carrying passengers) needs a pilot and a copilot in all modern countries. Pilots are also fairly powerful. Any airline expressing an interest in replacing pilots would find that its pilots would go on strike, leaving the airline to pay its very expensive debt service while taking in no revenue from passengers.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    And I’m not sure flying is actually easier than driving. Consider takeoff, landing, inclement weather, turbulence, etc.
     
    Turbulence is a nothingburger. Unsettling, but pose no real risks; like speed bumps on a road, but without the chance that it will swerve you into a ditch. I don't think a single passenger aircraft has been lost to turbulence in the entire history of aviation. Landing and takeoff are indeed the single challenging aspects about it, since - for a brief time - one needs to contend with the full set of spatial dimensions.

    From my (very limited) experience of flying it is indeed very easy, was allowed to land on my third try. In the UK, they let children do it (with an instructor), whereas you can only get a driver's license when you're 16. In contrast, it took me ages before I could drive a car to follow the markings on the road accurately.

    I suspect that the mass of regulations around flying arose out of the inherent and understandable phobia around flying (which ofc has had the effect of making flying extremely safe per mile, much more so than any other transport option apart from railways). Ergo the need for not just one but two pilots is also I suspect largely a product of social psychology. I would probably compare it to atomophobia. Nuclear power is inherently very safe, and the phobia around it has made it even safer.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Drone fighters can basically ignore g. That alone would appear to make them ultracompetitive vs. human pilots, not just today but at least a decade or two ago already.

    Other advantages:
    * Don't care about own life/survival, can act completely "altruistically" in combat
    * Near instantaneous networking with allied assets
    * Much greater information integration, and capacity to act on it (AI can already beat the best humans at complex games without full information, so I am sure they can trounce the best fighter aces even without the above advantages)

    While I am certainly no military expert, I can't help but think that institutional inertia explains much or most of the reasons that they have not been widely fielded yet.
  123. @Thorfinnsson
    The first aircraft autopilot was fielded in 1912. Planes can takeoff, fly, and land themselves. Western pilots claim that Third World airliner pilots are inadequately trained and rely on autopilot too much.

    And I'm not sure flying is actually easier than driving. Consider takeoff, landing, inclement weather, turbulence, etc. And how does an autopilot deal with adapting to an aircraft that suffers critical component failures in flight? By "modeling" all such failures in advance? Certainly it's a lot easier to get a driver license than a pilot's license. In the US you need 20 hours of flying time just to get a sport pilot license.

    Then there are regulations. A revenue flight (i.e. one carrying passengers) needs a pilot and a copilot in all modern countries. Pilots are also fairly powerful. Any airline expressing an interest in replacing pilots would find that its pilots would go on strike, leaving the airline to pay its very expensive debt service while taking in no revenue from passengers.

    And I’m not sure flying is actually easier than driving. Consider takeoff, landing, inclement weather, turbulence, etc.

    Turbulence is a nothingburger. Unsettling, but pose no real risks; like speed bumps on a road, but without the chance that it will swerve you into a ditch. I don’t think a single passenger aircraft has been lost to turbulence in the entire history of aviation. Landing and takeoff are indeed the single challenging aspects about it, since – for a brief time – one needs to contend with the full set of spatial dimensions.

    From my (very limited) experience of flying it is indeed very easy, was allowed to land on my third try. In the UK, they let children do it (with an instructor), whereas you can only get a driver’s license when you’re 16. In contrast, it took me ages before I could drive a car to follow the markings on the road accurately.

    I suspect that the mass of regulations around flying arose out of the inherent and understandable phobia around flying (which ofc has had the effect of making flying extremely safe per mile, much more so than any other transport option apart from railways). Ergo the need for not just one but two pilots is also I suspect largely a product of social psychology. I would probably compare it to atomophobia. Nuclear power is inherently very safe, and the phobia around it has made it even safer.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Turbulence isn't a problem (except for passengers), but weather fronts with a large amount of electric energy are. So too are certain types of precipitation as well as aircraft icing. Pilots not only know how to deal with these problems, but can deal with novel problems (hopefully...).

    Negative problems in aviation tend to be much more unexpected than those on roads, and they occur at high altitude and at high speed. Nassim Taleb would describe aviation safety problems as belonging to Extremistan.

    Delta Airlines has invested in extremely expensive supercomputing to try to ensure its customers never experience bad turbulence or scary weather. It still happens routinely. Automated flying is applying that approach to the whole thing.

    Children can drive cars just fine. Lots of hoodlums steal cars when they're 14 for instance. 16 is an arbitrary limit.

    You're the opposite of me in that I've always found driving to be very easy. The only real challenge was mastering a manual transmission. Driving on the race track is also challenging, though that's expected.

    Flying isn't hard, but I find it more challenging than driving (disclaimer: only have 14 flying hours, and none recently). While you don't have to deal with other traffic (mostly) or objects in the way, the machine itself has many more variables you need to be aware of. Certainly nothing like elevator trim based on your fuel load ever comes up in a car (granted, a problem which was first successfully automated in the 1940s on the Fw-190).

    The social psychology thing is obviously true. It wasn't until 1980 that twin-engine airliners were permitted to fly Transatlantic routes, even though Charles Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic in a single-engine aircraft in 1927. Mathematically any "rational" person can understand that the benefit of cheaper Transatlantic flights outweighs the very marginally increased risks of ditching over water. But that kind of thinking horrifies ordinary people.

    Another argument against fully-AI passenger aviation is a similar to one against fully automated trucking, which is that pilots do a lot more than just fly the plane. They also engage in crew management (pilots are called first officers on airlines), customer relations, maintenance, and law enforcement. And without pilots the world's bars would suffer greatly.
    , @reiner Tor
    Fear of the unknown is usually pretty adaptive. Because the unknown is usually bad.

    In the case of AI, the risks are pretty simple: a bug in the system, multiplied hundreds of times. I have seen the effects of a bug which had been there for nearly two decades without a problem. AI will be way more complex, so it'll have many more bugs, and some of those will not be transparent for a very long time. So it will be possible for them to get multiplied into all aircraft, and all of them go wrong simultaneously.

    This is rather different from bugs in the human brain, numerous as they are, because they rarely go off the same time for all people, and we are used to them.

    The F-35 is far from autonomous, but it's already smart enough. During an exercise it figured out that the mock "Russian air defense" radars weren't real, and so it simply disregarded them. Now this is actually not very dangerous: the exercise had to be postponed until the "bug" (or feature) was fixed, but otherwise no harm came out of it. But it affected each F-35: so if there's a problem, it could easily affect the whole fleet. And I'm pretty sure not all bugs will be so innocent as this one was.
  124. @songbird
    I see a lot of future potential in drones:

    Without much AI, you could program them ahead of time. They could navigate like birds even without GPS, or secure communications. Their targets would be pre-selected - easy to do with the kind of spy sats that exist now.

    Their instructions would be basic, mathematical - destroy all planes and hangers on airbase - destroy all ships that look like X, Y , or Z in zone 25. Even unarmed ones could potentially seriously change the amount of intel gathered.

    There are so many potential strengths. They could accelerate faster than pilots, require shorter runways. Information is duplicative, so they would not need to be trained, only built. They would be cheaper. There could be swarms of them. You could really minimize the factor of unit cost and steamroll your enemies with shear numbers.

    I think the main hurdles are political. It is the same with the deployment of non-deadly weapons.

    Without much AI, you could program them ahead of time. They could navigate like birds even without GPS, or secure communications. Their targets would be pre-selected – easy to do with the kind of spy sats that exist now.

    Targets move.

    The trajectory of spy satellites is known.

    Their instructions would be basic, mathematical – destroy all planes and hangers on airbase – destroy all ships that look like X, Y , or Z in zone 25. Even unarmed ones could potentially seriously change the amount of intel gathered.

    Reconnaissance drones are nothing new and have been used for over 50 years.

    Target identification is a sticky problem. Planes can be moved, camouflaged, etc.

    There are so many potential strengths. They could accelerate faster than pilots, require shorter runways. Information is duplicative, so they would not need to be trained, only built. They would be cheaper. There could be swarms of them. You could really minimize the factor of unit cost and steamroll your enemies with shear numbers.

    A high performance UCAV would still have giant engines, a big radar, lots of internal fuel, many weapons stations, etc. It would be a big, heavy, expensive aircraft.

    Some size and expense would of course be saved by deleting the cockpit and life support systems, but not that much. Just look at a photo of an F-22 and see how small the cockpit is relative to the rest of the aircraft.

    There are real personnel savings here, but that’s somewhat illusory too. A UCAV still requires maintenance crews, squadron commanders, engineering support, etc. A bigger advantage is that UCAVs could go to war right off the production line without also getting a pilot through flight school which takes hundreds of hours (and requires instructors, trainer aircraft, more maintenance personnel, more bases, etc.).

    I’m a proponent of “optionally-manned” combat aircraft. If AI technology ever matures to the level its proponents claim it will, then you just cashier the pilots or switch them to desk duty. If it fails to, you still have your pilots. The AI capability would also be useful in the event pilots are incapacitated in combat or you need to send warplanes on some kind of suicide mission.

    I think the main hurdles are political. It is the same with the deployment of non-deadly weapons.

    Yes, and there are also labor problems. Pilots themselves object to being replaced, and pilots run most air forces.

    • Replies: @songbird

    Targets move.
     
    True, but there is always first strike advantage. I think of the devastating attack on Clarke Air Base. Plus, it is harder to move infrastructure, like hangers and fuel tanks. Navy ships would likely be easily identifiable. If you ask me, air power is more concentrated nowadays, after many base closings. An attack on Edwards would potentially be devastating.

    Some size and expense would of course be saved by deleting the cockpit and life support systems, but not that much.
     
    Also, quite true, but the equation potentially changes a lot, if you think of something like a carrier. Drones need not all be long range - they can be short range, but carried to the battlefield by other drones, maybe ships or subs. In such a case, they don't need living quarters or food.

    Drones can also be their own missiles, which is another savings of weight.
  125. @reiner Tor
    No, but I thought that because they are more offensive weapons, the development of air superiority fighters should take precedence over the production of new bombers.

    The utility of building the Tu-160M2 (as opposed to upgrading the existing fleet) is questionable anyway in my opinion. It’s arguably not a very modern delivery platform anyway, but it’s still horribly expensive, and even technically difficult. They also have several dozens or even hundreds of unmodernized Tu-22M strategic bombers, some in service, many many more in reserve, which could be modernized, too, if there really is a need for more bombers.

    So why prioritize the Tu-160M2 production (which will be a slow program fraught with difficulties anyway) over either modernization of the existing bomber fleet or finally finishing the currently largely on hold Su-57 program?

    How old are the air frames of the heavy bombers and how long would the VKS wait for new ones if the state would not invest right now into the production of new air frames?

    modernization of the existing bomber

    http://tass.com/defense/1051231

    http://tass.com/defense/1038351

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    How old are the air frames of the heavy bombers
     
    The Tu-160 entered service in 1987. Production ceased in 1992, so probably all of the airframes were built back then. Airframes should survive way longer. Especially since many of them saw no service between 1992 and 1999. One was finished in 2000, another in 2006, a third one in 2008, a fourth one in 2018. So at least these four are pretty new, and the eight delivered from Ukraine in 1999 will probably also be in better shape than the older ones.

    Russia also has older Tu-95s, which should be able to remain in service until the 2040s or so. Actually, the new plan of mass producing the Tu-160 means that the Tu-95 will be retired earlier than planned. Does it make sense? Maybe. But I'm skeptical.
  126. @Thorfinnsson
    The first aircraft autopilot was fielded in 1912. Planes can takeoff, fly, and land themselves. Western pilots claim that Third World airliner pilots are inadequately trained and rely on autopilot too much.

    And I'm not sure flying is actually easier than driving. Consider takeoff, landing, inclement weather, turbulence, etc. And how does an autopilot deal with adapting to an aircraft that suffers critical component failures in flight? By "modeling" all such failures in advance? Certainly it's a lot easier to get a driver license than a pilot's license. In the US you need 20 hours of flying time just to get a sport pilot license.

    Then there are regulations. A revenue flight (i.e. one carrying passengers) needs a pilot and a copilot in all modern countries. Pilots are also fairly powerful. Any airline expressing an interest in replacing pilots would find that its pilots would go on strike, leaving the airline to pay its very expensive debt service while taking in no revenue from passengers.

    Drone fighters can basically ignore g. That alone would appear to make them ultracompetitive vs. human pilots, not just today but at least a decade or two ago already.

    Other advantages:
    * Don’t care about own life/survival, can act completely “altruistically” in combat
    * Near instantaneous networking with allied assets
    * Much greater information integration, and capacity to act on it (AI can already beat the best humans at complex games without full information, so I am sure they can trounce the best fighter aces even without the above advantages)

    While I am certainly no military expert, I can’t help but think that institutional inertia explains much or most of the reasons that they have not been widely fielded yet.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Drone fighters can't ignore g because aircraft are still subject to the laws of physics. You can design a drone aircraft to handle much higher g loads, but this isn't "free". The aircraft structure necessarily becomes heavier, which penalizes range, payload, acceleration, and turn performance.

    Maneuvers that can generate extremely high g forces in turn would require greater aerodynamic lift (more drag and more weight) and/or more thrust vectoring (more weight). Combat aircraft already have very high wing loading compared to early fighters because the drag penalties are not worth the increase in turning performance.

    If new developments in flight suits work out then human pilots will be able to pull 14g soon, more than any fighter aircraft has ever been designed for.

    Manned aircraft are already capable of instantaneous networking--this is one of the core features of the F-35.

    The other advantages are true, and I'm sure inertia and pilot resistance play a role. Though I'm not so sure about the AI advantage over humans. Games have rules. Combat doesn't. Fortunately this is the kind of thing that can be war gamed (with real aircraft--not just computer simulations) and improved over time.

    , @Thulean Friend
    The reason why AI in combat aircraft hasn't taken off is likely because the stakes are higher. If the AI goes rogue or there is a mistake and it crashes, the costs involved are simply much greater than a single civilian passanger car getting into a crash. Combat drones are usually deployed over very poor countries which can't fight back and even they are by and large remote-controlled by humans.

    Fighter jets are often used to mark against other states, often competitors/rivals. If a large part of a state's jets were automated and there was a concerted malfunction, a war would not be unthinkable. The stakes are simply dramatically higher.

    Narrow AI is almost certainly safer than humans at any rate, but the psychology behind this reluctance is understandable from a psychological point of view, though still irrational at its root.

    , @Dave Pinsen
    Another advantage is that drones can be smaller. But one objection to them may be a fear that they could be hacked and turned against those who deployed them.
    , @reiner Tor

    Drone fighters can basically ignore g.
     
    Air-to-air missiles are generally not very good at that, because their wings are small, and have to make all sorts of horrible compromises with speed, maneuverability, altitude, range, etc. For example if the plane quickly drops altitude, the missile has to follow it, leading to a loss of speed, after which it's pretty difficult for it to regain either altitude or speed.

    I agree that there's some advantage, but it's not as large as you'd think.
  127. @Anatoly Karlin

    And I’m not sure flying is actually easier than driving. Consider takeoff, landing, inclement weather, turbulence, etc.
     
    Turbulence is a nothingburger. Unsettling, but pose no real risks; like speed bumps on a road, but without the chance that it will swerve you into a ditch. I don't think a single passenger aircraft has been lost to turbulence in the entire history of aviation. Landing and takeoff are indeed the single challenging aspects about it, since - for a brief time - one needs to contend with the full set of spatial dimensions.

    From my (very limited) experience of flying it is indeed very easy, was allowed to land on my third try. In the UK, they let children do it (with an instructor), whereas you can only get a driver's license when you're 16. In contrast, it took me ages before I could drive a car to follow the markings on the road accurately.

    I suspect that the mass of regulations around flying arose out of the inherent and understandable phobia around flying (which ofc has had the effect of making flying extremely safe per mile, much more so than any other transport option apart from railways). Ergo the need for not just one but two pilots is also I suspect largely a product of social psychology. I would probably compare it to atomophobia. Nuclear power is inherently very safe, and the phobia around it has made it even safer.

    Turbulence isn’t a problem (except for passengers), but weather fronts with a large amount of electric energy are. So too are certain types of precipitation as well as aircraft icing. Pilots not only know how to deal with these problems, but can deal with novel problems (hopefully…).

    Negative problems in aviation tend to be much more unexpected than those on roads, and they occur at high altitude and at high speed. Nassim Taleb would describe aviation safety problems as belonging to Extremistan.

    Delta Airlines has invested in extremely expensive supercomputing to try to ensure its customers never experience bad turbulence or scary weather. It still happens routinely. Automated flying is applying that approach to the whole thing.

    Children can drive cars just fine. Lots of hoodlums steal cars when they’re 14 for instance. 16 is an arbitrary limit.

    You’re the opposite of me in that I’ve always found driving to be very easy. The only real challenge was mastering a manual transmission. Driving on the race track is also challenging, though that’s expected.

    Flying isn’t hard, but I find it more challenging than driving (disclaimer: only have 14 flying hours, and none recently). While you don’t have to deal with other traffic (mostly) or objects in the way, the machine itself has many more variables you need to be aware of. Certainly nothing like elevator trim based on your fuel load ever comes up in a car (granted, a problem which was first successfully automated in the 1940s on the Fw-190).

    The social psychology thing is obviously true. It wasn’t until 1980 that twin-engine airliners were permitted to fly Transatlantic routes, even though Charles Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic in a single-engine aircraft in 1927. Mathematically any “rational” person can understand that the benefit of cheaper Transatlantic flights outweighs the very marginally increased risks of ditching over water. But that kind of thinking horrifies ordinary people.

    Another argument against fully-AI passenger aviation is a similar to one against fully automated trucking, which is that pilots do a lot more than just fly the plane. They also engage in crew management (pilots are called first officers on airlines), customer relations, maintenance, and law enforcement. And without pilots the world’s bars would suffer greatly.

  128. @Anatoly Karlin
    Drone fighters can basically ignore g. That alone would appear to make them ultracompetitive vs. human pilots, not just today but at least a decade or two ago already.

    Other advantages:
    * Don't care about own life/survival, can act completely "altruistically" in combat
    * Near instantaneous networking with allied assets
    * Much greater information integration, and capacity to act on it (AI can already beat the best humans at complex games without full information, so I am sure they can trounce the best fighter aces even without the above advantages)

    While I am certainly no military expert, I can't help but think that institutional inertia explains much or most of the reasons that they have not been widely fielded yet.

    Drone fighters can’t ignore g because aircraft are still subject to the laws of physics. You can design a drone aircraft to handle much higher g loads, but this isn’t “free”. The aircraft structure necessarily becomes heavier, which penalizes range, payload, acceleration, and turn performance.

    Maneuvers that can generate extremely high g forces in turn would require greater aerodynamic lift (more drag and more weight) and/or more thrust vectoring (more weight). Combat aircraft already have very high wing loading compared to early fighters because the drag penalties are not worth the increase in turning performance.

    If new developments in flight suits work out then human pilots will be able to pull 14g soon, more than any fighter aircraft has ever been designed for.

    Manned aircraft are already capable of instantaneous networking–this is one of the core features of the F-35.

    The other advantages are true, and I’m sure inertia and pilot resistance play a role. Though I’m not so sure about the AI advantage over humans. Games have rules. Combat doesn’t. Fortunately this is the kind of thing that can be war gamed (with real aircraft–not just computer simulations) and improved over time.

  129. @reiner Tor
    I was unsure if I should count the MiG-31s and Su-34s, because I was more thinking in terms of air superiority roles - what can Russia field against NATO air forces if there was a danger of conflict?

    I think the danger of nuclear war exists mostly because Western politicians (and to a large extent generals) don't take Russian conventional abilities seriously. Now with Westerners fielding several hundreds of F-35s annually (I don't know if you followed the discussion, but in my opinion it's obvious that the F-35 is very good in BVR combat and, at least when it has numerical superiority, probably can hold its own in WVR combat, too), in addition to the already formidable and numerically superior existing fleet of modern fighters and the purchases of some additional 4th gen fighters in many countries (Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, now Poland is buying something, though it could easily be F-35, Hungary is likely to expand its air force, though, again, it could easily be the F-35), and it's pretty obvious that the people advocating for brinkmanship do have a point: NATO will have overwhelming air superiority.

    Regarding China (I don't know which debate of Karlin and Martyanov you're referring to), are you aware that the Chinese 5th generation fighters have no cannons?

    I was unsure if I should count the MiG-31s and Su-34s, because I was more thinking in terms of air superiority roles – what can Russia field against NATO air forces if there was a danger of conflict?

    Yeah, but both are multirole aircraft with decent BVR-capabilities at least. It of course means that F-15Es etc. should be counted as well.

    Regarding China (I don’t know which debate of Karlin and Martyanov you’re referring to), are you aware that the Chinese 5th generation fighters have no cannons?

    Yes. Although I’m not sure that’s actually confirmed. By the way, those sources and authors are questionable, to say the least. I wouldn’t take people like David Axe and Alex Lockie seriously at all.

    For one thing, if I remember correctly, Andreas Rupprecht (aka Deino) has complained several times how he is constantly quoted out of context by these idiots, in order to fit into their “Chinese military is actually weak” narrative. So it probably happened again here.

    Karlin vs. Martyanov. Very entertaining, but off-topic: https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258131

    After quick browsing, this comment sounds plausible:

    That’s incorrect. The J-20 has a gun compartment but no gun (according to yankeesama) currently to save weight and because firing the gun damages the stealth coating. The weight and paint issues will be sorted out in the future. It would be ludicrous for the J-20 – primarily an air-superiority fighter – not to have a close-range weapon for going up against enemy stealth fighters.

    And:

    Why is this even an point of argument? The source that claimed that the J-20 has no gun also stated that the aircraft has a space for a cannon should the need arise.

    It is merely an issue of installing a cannon if a sortie requires such armament.

    Even this is better than most articles on National Interest or Business Insider (lmao):
    https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/2019/03/10/advanced-helmet-pl-10-missile-ensure-j-20s-killing-of-f-35-f-22/

    So basically his argument is that J-20’s advanced helmet + the short-range PL-10 missile is the winning combo.

    In any case, the “Chinese 5th gen fighters have zero dogfighting abilities” clickbait is obviously total nonsense.

    You have good points, and some people take their wishful thinking regarding the F-35 a little too far, but I think you are too pessimistic. I really don’t think the F-35 is a silver bullet, no matter how many hundreds are churned out annually. And some F-35 critics argue that while the plane itself isn’t that expensive anymore, its maintenance requirements in general are so demanding and costly that the sortie and availability rates are… bad. There’s probably at least some truth to that, especially when we are talking about smaller countries and air forces.

    That said, with the current and planned production rates, if we assume the F-35 is anywhere near as good as advertised, it would basically mean that the US is becoming militarily and technologically more dominant, even vs. China. (One major caveat: their very vulnerable basing? But that’s it? They would actually be dominant once in the air?) But that is not supported by almost any other indicator or military program. Or is it? There’s one that comes close, though. It’s the “China can’t into nuclear subs, EVER” meme, but it’s even more obviously false, in my opinion.

    And if that’s the case, China (and even the US? Or Russia) wouldn’t still be procuring very large numbers of 4.5th gen fighters. Interestingly, it would also mean that in a hypothetical conflict between the UK and France (near equals), for example, the latter would be at a massive disadvantage, as only a few F-35 would wipe the floor with 4.5th gen Rafales (at least theoretically, as long as the F-35s wouldn’t run out of missiles). That makes no sense. Now there are probably better examples, and you could argue that the comparison is stupid because France is not attempting to challenge “The Empire” and is in many ways just a vassal, so it doesn’t count, but still.

    Lastly, we have Turkey’s S-400 deal. It’s almost as if Turkey chose the S-400 over the F-35 + Patriot? I don’t think it’s necessarily that simple (or rather, it obviously isn’t), but such a conclusion wouldn’t be too ludicrous at all. Or how dumb are the Turks?

    Almost forgot the bombers. Russia is not only “prioritizing” the Tu-160 over the Su-57 program (I’m not sure it’s actually true though, hence the “”) , but as I pointed out in my previous post, Russia has prioritized multirole Su-30s (which are replacing some of the remaining Su-24s) and fighter bombers Su-34 over the air-to-air focused Su-35s as well. And yes, they are planning to deeply modernize some Tu-22Ms and even Su-25s too. The Russian military must have good reasons for that?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    Karlin vs. Martyanov. Very entertaining, but off-topic: https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258131
     

    Just read this.

    I think what Martyanov means by "enclosed technological cycles" is the ability to to manufacture final goods without needing to import raw materials, intermediate goods, and capital goods.

    This has the benefit of reducing a state's dependence on foreign trade, but it generally comes at the cost of reduced economic efficiency. Martyanov is a Sovok who dismisses "bourgeois economics" as pseudoscience, so he would either deny the penalty exists or dismiss it as irrelevant.

    He says something interesting in another comment in that thread:


    Any talk about “economy” within framework of modern Western “economism” (a euphemism for FIRE) is a waste of time. There is no real economy without enclosed technological cycles–that’s the name of the game and always was since the start of industrial age. Father of liberalism Herbert Spencer abhorred national industrial self-sustainability as an indicator of militarism. Paradoxically, he was partially correct with this association.
     
    His first sentence is simply Sovokism (and actually beyond that--more on that later), but then he gets to the core of his economic doctrine.

    Martyanov actually has an economic worldview somewhat similar to Adolf Hitler, who considered dependence on trade to be dangerous to the state's self-sufficiency and military power. If a state doesn't have overwhelming military control of its trade routes (which Germany lacked, as does Russia today) that's obviously true.

    Most major powers try to balance this tradeoff by have some level of self-sufficiency for their military-industrial complex, while integrating their civilian-industrial sectors into the world trade system to increase economic efficiency.

    Russia and the United States are relatively unique in having nearly completely self-sufficient military industrial complexes which can produce every class of weapon and munition without substantial foreign input.

    Martyanov being a Sovok, this is the only economy that matters to him. And on a certain crude level, it's correct. Sure, a lot of countries are more prosperous than Russia. But Russia, like Samson, can at any moment pull down the temple thanks to its ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES. So [email protected]#$ those prosperous vassalized Kraut-dummies! Sarmat ICBMs > Mercedes-Benz cars. Russsssssia STRONK!

    The error military-industrial types, especially of the Soviet variety, make is in generalizing this to the rest of the economy. It's certainly true that Embraer doesn't have the capability to produce aircraft without imported components. But compare the sales figures of Embraer to Sukhoi (ignoring, for the moment, that the Superjet is not the product of an enclosed Russian technological cycle) and it's clear that the winner is Embraer.

    Martyanov, like a lot of Western dissidents and foreign anti-Americans, makes the very basic error of thinking the US economy is "fake" (despite containing quite a lot of ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES). You see, banking is not part of the actual economy. Debt is evil (it's in the Bible after all), and the US Dollar is just a worthless scrap of paper. The whole house of cards is going to collapse Real Soon Now...

    Karlin demanded that Martyanov produce a way of quantifying this. It seems to be that the way of doing so would be to apply the economic complexity approach to an economy's output of final manufactured goods and subtract all imports involved in the production of these final goods (raw materials, intermediate goods, capital goods, and intellectual property). To this one would add as well the net trade balance in final manufactured goods.

    , @reiner Tor

    if we assume the F-35 is anywhere near as good as advertised, it would basically mean that the US is becoming militarily and technologically more dominant, even vs. China
     
    I'm not entirely sure about that. It's just one clog in a very large system, and as you also realized, it has an Achilles heel: it needs extensive maintenance in relatively well-maintained airports or carriers, which could be damaged or destroyed.

    But yeah, sure, in that one respect, they are getting better than anyone else. Frequently changing strategies over such overwhelming odds is not a very smart thing, because you will not finish anything like that.

    Lastly, we have Turkey’s S-400 deal. It’s almost as if Turkey chose the S-400 over the F-35 + Patriot? I don’t think it’s necessarily that simple (or rather, it obviously isn’t), but such a conclusion wouldn’t be too ludicrous at all. Or how dumb are the Turks?
     
    Explanation #1
    The F-35 is (or would be) very difficult to use against Uncle Sam or its Best Friend(TM). It uploads its data to servers physically located in the US. So it gives you excellent capabilities against kosher enemies. But what if you felt there was a chance of a conflict with an enemy which has no kosher approval?

    Explanation #2
    The Turks originally wanted to buy the Patriot, but the Pentagon or the State Department didn't let them. After a while they started threatening with buying from the Russians. It escalated into a game of chicken with the Americans, and the Americans called their bluff. Now they feel they cannot back down without a loss of face. The Americans either don't understand it, or they want to humiliate and destroy Erdogan. Anyway, they don't want to back down either.

    Maybe there are some other explanations, and of course it could be a combination of these. Also, Russian weapons are way cheaper. It's possible that for the same money the S-400 is better than the Patriot, or some NASAMS/Patriot/THAAD combination, or whatever.

    Russia is not only “prioritizing” the Tu-160 over the Su-57 program (I’m not sure it’s actually true though, hence the “”) , but as I pointed out in my previous post, Russia has prioritized multirole Su-30s (which are replacing some of the remaining Su-24s) and fighter bombers Su-34 over the air-to-air focused Su-35s as well. And yes, they are planning to deeply modernize some Tu-22Ms and even Su-25s too. The Russian military must have good reasons for that?
     
    Perhaps they are preparing for a war against an enemy with a weaker air force. I guess Ukraine. Some things start to make sense in that light. E.g. the sudden shelving of the Armata program, and instead modernizing thousands of T-72s to the latest B3M standard. Against Ukraine, it's better to have 1000 modernized T-72B3M battle tanks than 300 Armatas. Against the US, the opposite might be true. Also, longer term, producing the Armatas might be better. But maybe they are planning for a war (or the possibility of it) in the near future.
  130. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    does ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting
     
    Jack Dorsey may be aiming for maximum mental performance. However, if he thinks he will last a long time like that he is mistaken. In all cases stick as close to what it would be in nature as you can. Over a year you have meat and the dark long nights to sleep, and in summer you can gorge on sugar and stay up late. This cheat days stuff puts the changes of a year into a week, and is a recipe for dysregulating your metabolism. To age slowly, low to moderate protein intake is key. Of course feeling good and aging slowly are not the same thing and there is every reason to believe that one diet cannot do both.

    Low to moderate protein intake as a percentage of overall calories? Or in terms of absolute calories?

    Ketogenic diets and intermittent fasting mainly work by lowering overall caloric intake. Keto diets have lots of fat that sate you quickly. It’s hard to stop keep on eating a bag of chips or french fries, but you can’t eat much of a stick of butter without starting to feel queasy. This coupled with reduced carb intake means none of the glucose spikes from carbs that give you hunger pangs and brain fog regularly just a few hours after a carb heavy meal.

    The keto/fasting protocol is supposed to try to mimic paleolithic patterns of feast and famine, though it’s unclear how accurate it is, and whether it’s even optimal anyway.

    • Replies: @Sean
    .

    The keto/fasting protocol is supposed to try to mimic paleolithic patterns of feast and famine, though it’s unclear how accurate it is, and whether it’s even optimal anyway.
     
    The pattern was annual with phases months long . Trying to fit the seasons of the year into a week and repeating 50 times a year while thinking that you are doing something evolution has fitted you for is wrong in principle, and likely to have unpleasant consequences.
  131. Counterdominance deathsquad

    The late Henry Harpending, who had lived among the Bushmen, talked about this. He did not suggest it as a cause of homosexuality or increased learning ability though.

    • Replies: @Sean
    Bit disappointed no one here thinks that Wrangham's lynching theory of self domestication is worthy of discussion. It occurs to me that as being bullied as a child is the biggest behavioural indicator of later developing schizophrenia, pro-active communal killing of troublemakers may explain even more than Wrangham suggests. The part of his lecture where he talks about adults suckliing at the breast is pretty startling.
  132. AK: Random anons don’t get to advertise their websites here.

  133. @songbird
    Ron made some comment on another thread that had me thinking. He was talking about the potential bad influence of America on China and how the Chinese had had the foresight to limit it with movie quotas and blocking the internet.

    This made me wonder, since many of the Chinese I have known seem to have been pretty familiar with Hollywood cultural outputs, including some old movies and some old American TV shows. I even recall some years ago, hearing some English teacher saying he had Chinese students that spoke like the Dukes of Hazard (some TV old show, set in the South). Maybe, these are not typical Chinese.

    Not to mention, the quota movies can sometimes be diversitarian - so it seems like they are blocking mostly on economics, not politics.

    So I wonder, how much of Hollywood makes it into China, beyond the movie theater quotas? Like, how much would be on normal TV? And how much of it would be in English, if any? How would Chinese be familiar with old american TV shows - is this just DVD and internet piracy, or did they play on TV?

    Movies are censored in China, in the Hangover the part with the naked Asian guy in the car boot if cut out of the film, so even those approved are then edited. The Chinese are right that the film and TV industry are a real danger.

    • Replies: @songbird

    Movies are censored in China, in the Hangover the part with the naked Asian guy in the car boot if cut out of the film
     
    This I would also do. There is no sensible reason for male nudity in movies.
  134. @Anatoly Karlin
    Drone fighters can basically ignore g. That alone would appear to make them ultracompetitive vs. human pilots, not just today but at least a decade or two ago already.

    Other advantages:
    * Don't care about own life/survival, can act completely "altruistically" in combat
    * Near instantaneous networking with allied assets
    * Much greater information integration, and capacity to act on it (AI can already beat the best humans at complex games without full information, so I am sure they can trounce the best fighter aces even without the above advantages)

    While I am certainly no military expert, I can't help but think that institutional inertia explains much or most of the reasons that they have not been widely fielded yet.

    The reason why AI in combat aircraft hasn’t taken off is likely because the stakes are higher. If the AI goes rogue or there is a mistake and it crashes, the costs involved are simply much greater than a single civilian passanger car getting into a crash. Combat drones are usually deployed over very poor countries which can’t fight back and even they are by and large remote-controlled by humans.

    Fighter jets are often used to mark against other states, often competitors/rivals. If a large part of a state’s jets were automated and there was a concerted malfunction, a war would not be unthinkable. The stakes are simply dramatically higher.

    Narrow AI is almost certainly safer than humans at any rate, but the psychology behind this reluctance is understandable from a psychological point of view, though still irrational at its root.

    • Replies: @Sean
    The A10 was supposed to be replaced by the F35, but the US decided to keep the A10s.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7IgwDqJhno


    The USAF have always hated the A10, which was designed for the Army. Think Aldo Ray (Aldo is the name of Brad Pitt's character in Inglourious Basterds)
  135. @Anonymous
    Low to moderate protein intake as a percentage of overall calories? Or in terms of absolute calories?

    Ketogenic diets and intermittent fasting mainly work by lowering overall caloric intake. Keto diets have lots of fat that sate you quickly. It's hard to stop keep on eating a bag of chips or french fries, but you can't eat much of a stick of butter without starting to feel queasy. This coupled with reduced carb intake means none of the glucose spikes from carbs that give you hunger pangs and brain fog regularly just a few hours after a carb heavy meal.

    The keto/fasting protocol is supposed to try to mimic paleolithic patterns of feast and famine, though it's unclear how accurate it is, and whether it's even optimal anyway.

    .

    The keto/fasting protocol is supposed to try to mimic paleolithic patterns of feast and famine, though it’s unclear how accurate it is, and whether it’s even optimal anyway.

    The pattern was annual with phases months long . Trying to fit the seasons of the year into a week and repeating 50 times a year while thinking that you are doing something evolution has fitted you for is wrong in principle, and likely to have unpleasant consequences.

    • Replies: @songbird
    The idea of a paleo diet seems pretty crazy. Firstly, because it is impossible to reconstruct accurately. Secondly, since there are so many sweeps associated with digestive genes, along with general genetic changes since paleolithic times. I think Chinese have an intestine which is at least half again as long - that is a pretty big change.

    If you were trying to target the optimal diet, based on the theory that what your body is most adapted to is best, you would probably have to try to target what the majority of your ancestors were eating in about 1492 AD.

    In my case, I'm not even sure what that was, other than sour-milk and probably butter. Big pass on the first one, which was probably their main source of protein, so looks like the ancestor diet is out of the question for me.

  136. @Thulean Friend
    The reason why AI in combat aircraft hasn't taken off is likely because the stakes are higher. If the AI goes rogue or there is a mistake and it crashes, the costs involved are simply much greater than a single civilian passanger car getting into a crash. Combat drones are usually deployed over very poor countries which can't fight back and even they are by and large remote-controlled by humans.

    Fighter jets are often used to mark against other states, often competitors/rivals. If a large part of a state's jets were automated and there was a concerted malfunction, a war would not be unthinkable. The stakes are simply dramatically higher.

    Narrow AI is almost certainly safer than humans at any rate, but the psychology behind this reluctance is understandable from a psychological point of view, though still irrational at its root.

    The A10 was supposed to be replaced by the F35, but the US decided to keep the A10s.

    The USAF have always hated the A10, which was designed for the Army. Think Aldo Ray (Aldo is the name of Brad Pitt’s character in Inglourious Basterds)

  137. @songbird
    Ron made some comment on another thread that had me thinking. He was talking about the potential bad influence of America on China and how the Chinese had had the foresight to limit it with movie quotas and blocking the internet.

    This made me wonder, since many of the Chinese I have known seem to have been pretty familiar with Hollywood cultural outputs, including some old movies and some old American TV shows. I even recall some years ago, hearing some English teacher saying he had Chinese students that spoke like the Dukes of Hazard (some TV old show, set in the South). Maybe, these are not typical Chinese.

    Not to mention, the quota movies can sometimes be diversitarian - so it seems like they are blocking mostly on economics, not politics.

    So I wonder, how much of Hollywood makes it into China, beyond the movie theater quotas? Like, how much would be on normal TV? And how much of it would be in English, if any? How would Chinese be familiar with old american TV shows - is this just DVD and internet piracy, or did they play on TV?

    Not to mention, the quota movies can sometimes be diversitarian – so it seems like they are blocking mostly on economics, not politics.

    So I wonder, how much of Hollywood makes it into China, beyond the movie theater quotas? Like, how much would be on normal TV? And how much of it would be in English, if any? How would Chinese be familiar with old american TV shows – is this just DVD and internet piracy, or did they play on TV?

    Obviously, they won’t allow anything that depicts the PRC as the villain or questions regime’s dogma on sensitive historical or territorial questions (although this is not so much of a problem for them now that Hollywood is dependent on the large Chinese market).

    However, for ordinary films, they will mostly censor scenes within a film or TV series if it contains what they deem to be too much violence or sexuality (both straight and the LGBT variant).

    Some diversitarian films in the cinemas I can recall acquaintances discussing are the We wuz kangs version of The Nutcracker, various SJW-ised American superhero films and, I think, Wakanda.

    Now, I have less familiarity with what’s show on TV than I have even on cinema, however, I have the impression the foreign material that is shown is not so much, however what is shown is mostly Chinese-dubbed versions of classic innocuous Japanese (Detective Conan, Doraemon) and American (Tom and Jerry) cartoons.

    However, many foreign films and TV shows, including some old ones (ex. it seems Dukes of Hazzard are available on both iQiyi and Youku, albeit with VIP subscriptions), are available on streaming services like iQiyi, Youku (like YouTube) and Bilibili (mostly East Asian cartoons but also some American ones) that are either free or charge a small subscription fee to access VIP material.

    Then there is also old-fashioned plain piracy.

    That doesn’t mean the authorities don’t shut down specific films or series sometimes, but overall it seems to be rather few restrictions beyond what I mentioned.

    Of course, many people will also have VPN, bypassing restrictions completely.

    • Replies: @songbird
    I have always thought that it was TV and not movies that was the key to subversion. Not many people will see an art-house movie. And big budget means big financial risk - traditionally producers would often balk at controversy. But TV is episodic, it amortizes the risk, or can wait until there is an audience, without the reviews that would potentially destroy a movie - or at least that is how it used to work.

    The volume of consumable product on TV is much greater. It encourages the desire to differentiate by pushing boundaries, both in film and TV, while simultaneously weakening the ability to protest. IMO, TV effectively destroyed the Hays Code, many years before it was even officially done away with.

    There used to be only about 4 networks in the US, when they starting pushing out the message. And China is already in the age of streaming, or so-called peak TV.

    I suppose that even old American TV in China has its censors, and they probably don't show something like All in the Family, which at the time was really about pushing the Overton window. I am not sure if they show The Dukes of Hazzard on American TV anymore, but what is funny is that they have effectively banned the merchandise from Amazon and Ebay because of the General Lee (the car on the show that had the Confederate flag.) But maybe, I am worrying for nothing and trashy leftist American TV doesn't have any cachet there.
  138. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @songbird
    Ron made some comment on another thread that had me thinking. He was talking about the potential bad influence of America on China and how the Chinese had had the foresight to limit it with movie quotas and blocking the internet.

    This made me wonder, since many of the Chinese I have known seem to have been pretty familiar with Hollywood cultural outputs, including some old movies and some old American TV shows. I even recall some years ago, hearing some English teacher saying he had Chinese students that spoke like the Dukes of Hazard (some TV old show, set in the South). Maybe, these are not typical Chinese.

    Not to mention, the quota movies can sometimes be diversitarian - so it seems like they are blocking mostly on economics, not politics.

    So I wonder, how much of Hollywood makes it into China, beyond the movie theater quotas? Like, how much would be on normal TV? And how much of it would be in English, if any? How would Chinese be familiar with old american TV shows - is this just DVD and internet piracy, or did they play on TV?

    Apparently there are still some holdover regulations on the media from the Cultural Revolution; for example, movies that depict supernatural entities such as ghosts are prohibited, I guess in an effort to eradicate rural superstition. The all-female Ghostbusters remake a few years ago was blocked from release in China on the pretense that it violated this rule.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-denied-release-china-910563

  139. @Thorfinnsson
    China pursues the Joe Goebbels strategy of forcing Hollywood to make any films it permits in its market conform to Chinese ideological requirements. Unsure about TV production, but Chinese TV budgets are huge so I doubt they import that much foreign TV content.

    A big problem for China now is that Japanese anime is conquering the hearts of their youth: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/23/super-patriotic-anime-youth-wars-china-japan-pop-culture/

    I have heard that they have a lot of war programs on TV, with Japan naturally as the villain. I have always been a bit mystified by this. I ask myself, is this just historical political legacy – something from the Mao era that just continues? Or does it reflect a still current and existential fear for the CCP – that Chinese will become enamored of the large, homogeneous, Asian democracy on their doorstep?

    I don’t know, but it seems wrong-headed to me. All their villains should be gay, black Muslims and trannies, IMO, except for the ones that are white Americans who seek to promote diversity. But from what I have read of their current guidelines, such programming would be impossible. And even if it didn’t go against the current rules, there would be political/economic reasons that would probably create a hard official response against such.

    And this, of course, is a great shame, because China may be the only market that has a chance of beating Hollywood in the propaganda war against globalism.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    I have heard that they have a lot of war programs on TV, with Japan naturally as the villain. I have always been a bit mystified by this. I ask myself, is this just historical political legacy – something from the Mao era that just continues? Or does it reflect a still current and existential fear for the CCP – that Chinese will become enamored of the large, homogeneous, Asian democracy on their doorstep?
     
    They also have a lot that feature the Nationalists. I saw bits of one where the Nationalists were dressed very snazzily, which to me seemed like it might defeat the point.

    Part of it is perhaps just inertia - Mao features on every note*, they also still teach atheism in schools and some bookstores have works by Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao and modern "capitalist" economics books on the same floor.

    But the important parts of the civil war (the Long March and the struggle against the Nationalists and the Japanese) are also the foundational myth of the CCP and their Great Patriotic War equivalent. They wouldn't really be able to relinquish that while still claiming continuity, which is the formal justification for their reign.

    *(There are some old notes below 1 yuan (1 and 5 Jiao) that are still in circulation that feature ethnic minorities instead but are not printed any more.)

    I don’t know, but it seems wrong-headed to me. All their villains should be gay, black Muslims and trannies, IMO, except for the ones that are white Americans who seek to promote diversity. But from what I have read of their current guidelines, such programming would be impossible.
     
    Africans are treated as backwards people in need of uplifting by their Chinese benevolent comrades.

    Vague Westerners are sometimes depicted as villains in contrast to Chinese heroes - ironically they are very Hollywood-style action films.

    There is one transexual on TV - Jin Xing:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jiv9p8qdPMk

    This video has a Tencent Video mark, I don't know how representative it is though:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XuDZnpT8Zw0
  140. @Hyperborean

    Not to mention, the quota movies can sometimes be diversitarian – so it seems like they are blocking mostly on economics, not politics.

    So I wonder, how much of Hollywood makes it into China, beyond the movie theater quotas? Like, how much would be on normal TV? And how much of it would be in English, if any? How would Chinese be familiar with old american TV shows – is this just DVD and internet piracy, or did they play on TV?
     
    Obviously, they won't allow anything that depicts the PRC as the villain or questions regime's dogma on sensitive historical or territorial questions (although this is not so much of a problem for them now that Hollywood is dependent on the large Chinese market).

    However, for ordinary films, they will mostly censor scenes within a film or TV series if it contains what they deem to be too much violence or sexuality (both straight and the LGBT variant).

    Some diversitarian films in the cinemas I can recall acquaintances discussing are the We wuz kangs version of The Nutcracker, various SJW-ised American superhero films and, I think, Wakanda.

    Now, I have less familiarity with what's show on TV than I have even on cinema, however, I have the impression the foreign material that is shown is not so much, however what is shown is mostly Chinese-dubbed versions of classic innocuous Japanese (Detective Conan, Doraemon) and American (Tom and Jerry) cartoons.

    However, many foreign films and TV shows, including some old ones (ex. it seems Dukes of Hazzard are available on both iQiyi and Youku, albeit with VIP subscriptions), are available on streaming services like iQiyi, Youku (like YouTube) and Bilibili (mostly East Asian cartoons but also some American ones) that are either free or charge a small subscription fee to access VIP material.

    Then there is also old-fashioned plain piracy.

    That doesn't mean the authorities don't shut down specific films or series sometimes, but overall it seems to be rather few restrictions beyond what I mentioned.

    Of course, many people will also have VPN, bypassing restrictions completely.

    I have always thought that it was TV and not movies that was the key to subversion. Not many people will see an art-house movie. And big budget means big financial risk – traditionally producers would often balk at controversy. But TV is episodic, it amortizes the risk, or can wait until there is an audience, without the reviews that would potentially destroy a movie – or at least that is how it used to work.

    The volume of consumable product on TV is much greater. It encourages the desire to differentiate by pushing boundaries, both in film and TV, while simultaneously weakening the ability to protest. IMO, TV effectively destroyed the Hays Code, many years before it was even officially done away with.

    There used to be only about 4 networks in the US, when they starting pushing out the message. And China is already in the age of streaming, or so-called peak TV.

    I suppose that even old American TV in China has its censors, and they probably don’t show something like All in the Family, which at the time was really about pushing the Overton window. I am not sure if they show The Dukes of Hazzard on American TV anymore, but what is funny is that they have effectively banned the merchandise from Amazon and Ebay because of the General Lee (the car on the show that had the Confederate flag.) But maybe, I am worrying for nothing and trashy leftist American TV doesn’t have any cachet there.

  141. @Sean
    .

    The keto/fasting protocol is supposed to try to mimic paleolithic patterns of feast and famine, though it’s unclear how accurate it is, and whether it’s even optimal anyway.
     
    The pattern was annual with phases months long . Trying to fit the seasons of the year into a week and repeating 50 times a year while thinking that you are doing something evolution has fitted you for is wrong in principle, and likely to have unpleasant consequences.

    The idea of a paleo diet seems pretty crazy. Firstly, because it is impossible to reconstruct accurately. Secondly, since there are so many sweeps associated with digestive genes, along with general genetic changes since paleolithic times. I think Chinese have an intestine which is at least half again as long – that is a pretty big change.

    If you were trying to target the optimal diet, based on the theory that what your body is most adapted to is best, you would probably have to try to target what the majority of your ancestors were eating in about 1492 AD.

    In my case, I’m not even sure what that was, other than sour-milk and probably butter. Big pass on the first one, which was probably their main source of protein, so looks like the ancestor diet is out of the question for me.

    • Replies: @notanon
    there must have been a lot of different ancestral paleo diets as people ate what was locally available but it's probably true the more northern your ancestors were the more meat and fat they ate and the less plants and vice versa for more southerly.

    otherwise i agree (relatively) recent ancestry may be just as or more important.
    , @notanon

    target what the majority of your ancestors were eating in about 1492 AD
     
    or even more recently than that - thinking about this some more my grand-parent's diet in modern "macro" terms would be:

    moderate carbs, moderate protein, moderate fat

    and the anti-fat campaign turned that into:

    high carbs, moderate protein, low fat

    so in a way all paleo and keto do is push you back towards what was the standard diet (for northern euros) less than a century ago and after a year or so of doing that and then slacking off a bit you'll pretty much be back with your grand-parent's diet again (with less bread and much less sugar).
  142. @Thorfinnsson
    So you're saying Russian defense procurement is driven by the same political pressures as defense procurement in all other countries?

    Being American I can tick off a massive list of cartoonish procurement failures. The Army hasn't produced a good infantry rifle since the 1930s. Our new aircraft carrier can't even launch or recover aircraft.

    Even during WW2 there were procurement fiascos in nearly all belligerent countries. Heinkel for instance was upset about being forced to produce Ju-88 wings and slow walked production until the RLM allowed them to instead produce the unreliable He-177. The US Navy equipped its submarines with dysfunctional torpedoes and punished officers who complained. Japan had bizarre rivalry between its navy and air force (except, oddly, on radar development) who refused to use each other's weapons. The USSR had the then useless MiG bureau turning out unsuitable fighters.

    Britain actually comes out looking good here as I can't really think of any British wartime procurement debacles (but perhaps our British commenters can).

    The Type 45 destroyers came in over budget, and the number of ships was cut in half.

    The new QE class carriers don’t have enough funding for the full complement of F-35s that could potentially be carried. The less effective B-model is used instead of the more expensive C-model.

    Britain doesn’t have an independent nuke deterrent, France does (The French carrier was even more of a disaster).

    The British Army rifle the L85, is inferior to the Steyr AUG that Australia uses. The SAS uses the M4 carbine. Thanks to hating the civilian population, the UK has no capacity to build its own rifles, and will probably buy the HK 416 as its replacement.

  143. @songbird
    I have heard that they have a lot of war programs on TV, with Japan naturally as the villain. I have always been a bit mystified by this. I ask myself, is this just historical political legacy - something from the Mao era that just continues? Or does it reflect a still current and existential fear for the CCP - that Chinese will become enamored of the large, homogeneous, Asian democracy on their doorstep?

    I don't know, but it seems wrong-headed to me. All their villains should be gay, black Muslims and trannies, IMO, except for the ones that are white Americans who seek to promote diversity. But from what I have read of their current guidelines, such programming would be impossible. And even if it didn't go against the current rules, there would be political/economic reasons that would probably create a hard official response against such.

    And this, of course, is a great shame, because China may be the only market that has a chance of beating Hollywood in the propaganda war against globalism.

    I have heard that they have a lot of war programs on TV, with Japan naturally as the villain. I have always been a bit mystified by this. I ask myself, is this just historical political legacy – something from the Mao era that just continues? Or does it reflect a still current and existential fear for the CCP – that Chinese will become enamored of the large, homogeneous, Asian democracy on their doorstep?

    They also have a lot that feature the Nationalists. I saw bits of one where the Nationalists were dressed very snazzily, which to me seemed like it might defeat the point.

    Part of it is perhaps just inertia – Mao features on every note*, they also still teach atheism in schools and some bookstores have works by Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao and modern “capitalist” economics books on the same floor.

    But the important parts of the civil war (the Long March and the struggle against the Nationalists and the Japanese) are also the foundational myth of the CCP and their Great Patriotic War equivalent. They wouldn’t really be able to relinquish that while still claiming continuity, which is the formal justification for their reign.

    *(There are some old notes below 1 yuan (1 and 5 Jiao) that are still in circulation that feature ethnic minorities instead but are not printed any more.)

    I don’t know, but it seems wrong-headed to me. All their villains should be gay, black Muslims and trannies, IMO, except for the ones that are white Americans who seek to promote diversity. But from what I have read of their current guidelines, such programming would be impossible.

    Africans are treated as backwards people in need of uplifting by their Chinese benevolent comrades.

    Vague Westerners are sometimes depicted as villains in contrast to Chinese heroes – ironically they are very Hollywood-style action films.

    There is one transexual on TV – Jin Xing:

    This video has a Tencent Video mark, I don’t know how representative it is though:

    • Replies: @songbird
    I have noticed this about Western villains, and always thought it was kind of funny. It was also true of HK cinema to a certain extent. I think it probably has something to do with the Century of Humiliation - though there was a time when Hollywood did like foreign (white) villains, often with fake Eastern European accents.

    In the Bruce Lee film "Fist of Fury", he sees white people walking into the park, but an Indian at the gate stops him and points to the sign "No Chinese and no dogs allowed." I suppose the Japanese still come off as worse - telling him to bark like a dog. But HK cinema was trying to make inroads into the West.

    I think the above is very interesting scene. If I recall, there was about one park in the whole of China that Chinese were no allowed to go into, and, of course, it had no such sign, and may have been motivated by rational security fears. I find the whole Chinese experience and reaction in amazing contrast to what has happened to the West and the reaction of Europeans. I don't think there was even 20,000 foreigners in China when the Boxer Rebellion happened - and it was quite violent.

    South Korea almost seems to have a similar flavor of white villains. I'm not overly familiar with their cinema, but it is possible it may specifically be anti-American.

  144. @songbird
    The idea of a paleo diet seems pretty crazy. Firstly, because it is impossible to reconstruct accurately. Secondly, since there are so many sweeps associated with digestive genes, along with general genetic changes since paleolithic times. I think Chinese have an intestine which is at least half again as long - that is a pretty big change.

    If you were trying to target the optimal diet, based on the theory that what your body is most adapted to is best, you would probably have to try to target what the majority of your ancestors were eating in about 1492 AD.

    In my case, I'm not even sure what that was, other than sour-milk and probably butter. Big pass on the first one, which was probably their main source of protein, so looks like the ancestor diet is out of the question for me.

    there must have been a lot of different ancestral paleo diets as people ate what was locally available but it’s probably true the more northern your ancestors were the more meat and fat they ate and the less plants and vice versa for more southerly.

    otherwise i agree (relatively) recent ancestry may be just as or more important.

  145. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:

    But the important parts of the civil war (the Long March and the struggle against the Nationalists and the Japanese) are also the foundational myth of the CCP and their Great Patriotic War equivalent.

    Just like in the West. The fascists stay absolute evil and the winners absolute good, only the details change.
    China claims that the Communist Party defeated the Japanese, and West teaches that LGBT women of color defeated the Germans.

  146. @Anatoly Karlin
    Drone fighters can basically ignore g. That alone would appear to make them ultracompetitive vs. human pilots, not just today but at least a decade or two ago already.

    Other advantages:
    * Don't care about own life/survival, can act completely "altruistically" in combat
    * Near instantaneous networking with allied assets
    * Much greater information integration, and capacity to act on it (AI can already beat the best humans at complex games without full information, so I am sure they can trounce the best fighter aces even without the above advantages)

    While I am certainly no military expert, I can't help but think that institutional inertia explains much or most of the reasons that they have not been widely fielded yet.

    Another advantage is that drones can be smaller. But one objection to them may be a fear that they could be hacked and turned against those who deployed them.

  147. @Thorfinnsson
    Keto is more associated with masculinity than other restrictive diets (e.g. vegetarianism and veganism), but I wouldn't consider it masculine signalling.

    The diet was largely popularized by Nina Teicholz after all.

    The biggest popularizer of the pseudo-keto "paleo" diet is Mark Sisson. Mark Sisson is a masculine man, but he's adept at propagandizing femoids.

    Even the CARNIVORE diet is mostly popularized by Jordan Peterson's daughter.

    I will say that women in our community do seem to struggle a lot more with avoiding carbohydrates and are always looking for excuses to add them to the diet. They're always the ones fussing around with nonsense like tapioca and arrowroot.

    Perhaps this testifies to a genuine physical need for carbohydrates in women.

    The physical benefits are substantial and well attested to in research and more importantly my ongoing n = 1 RCT.

    Tapioca is tasty stuff! My wife made some just yesterday. But she’s a toughie…not afraid of gluten even. In our house we keep politics and food separate.

  148. @Dacian Julien Soros bis
    In a related note, what the evidence that keto diet does something to your benefit? Has anyone seen it improve physical or mental abilities in a RCT? Did it prevent or cure any disease?

    And if not, what does it say about people who use the K word in a non-ironic way?

    OT: I am sorry for changing names too often, but I won't be bothered with providing personal info, and it seems that any handle I use gets registered and used by others.

    Who were you before? I lost my credentials too but it’s been months since I posted before today and I can’t even remember what my handle was.

    I’m not into fad diets of any kind, though I try to moderate fat and sugar intake. But anything which might help tubby yanks lose some weight is absolutely o.k. with me.

    • Replies: @Dacian Julien Soros bis
    I started as Dacian Soros, but i got rejected by the comments system about one month ago. I went for Dacian Julien Soros, and it got taken. Next, I was Dacia' n Soros. I think only the first one is registered by someone else, but Wordpress decided that the other ones are in use.

    I am trying to make it clear, from the name, that I am going to comment from a Romanian perspective, so that people who don't care would PgDown more easily :)

  149. @Thorfinnsson
    I don't know of any medical condition which is eliminated by consumption of vegetables other than scurvy. And curiously, scurvy doesn't develop in carnivores. This is odd because Vitamin C, which is not produced by the human body, is thought to be essential to the development of scar tissue.

    There is actually vitamin C in meat, but not much in muscle meats. And yet Joe and Charlene Andersen have been eating nothing but ribeye for more than twenty years. The carnivore popularizer Dr. Shawn Baker, another ribeye eater, has theorized that glucose and vitamin C compete for the same pathways because they are molecularly similar. Eliminate glucose from the diet and the body's vitamin C requirements decline. Plausible.

    But there are many medical conditions which are improved by eating meat. It's also telling that in India, the world's most pro-vegetarian traditional culture, the one caste that eats a lot of meat is the WARRIOR caste.

    You're definitely onto something with puritanism, and it has an old pedigree in North America. The inventor of Roman Meal, the Canadian physician Robert Jackson, was a health crank who wrote an absurd book claiming that eating a diet of bad-tasting, badly prepared whole grains (like, to take a perfectly random example, Roman Meal) could lead to eternal life. He routinely exaggerated his real age by decades to maintain this fiction.

    France and Japan can thank their excellent cuisines from saving themselves from postwar dietary rubbish. It would be an insult to their national reputations to adopt the diets recommended by vinegar drinking puritan scolds like the American Medical Association. I always get a chuckle about physicians discussing the French "Paradox" which has been a great mystery to them now for decades.

    Puritanism is also at work in the ridiculous hysteria directed against tobacco. Most smokers never develop lung cancers, yet tobacco is subject to extreme demonization and persecution. I like to joke that smokers are America's most persecuted minority.

    Most smokers never develop lung cancers, yet tobacco is subject to extreme demonization and persecution. I like to joke that smokers are America’s most persecuted minority.

    But most cases of lung cancer are the result of smoking. Now, I don’t think that the occasional cigar or bowl of aromatic tobaccos is a great health risk, but it’s the incessant cigarette smoking patterns developed in the early-mid part of the 20th century that caused the necessary uproar. I remember my father who religiously smoked 3 packs of camel straights every day for decades. This habit screwed up his blood circulation and caused some serious problems in his legs. I also strongly suspect that his smoking contributed greatly to him having several cardiac arrests. He’s lucky that he gave it all up in his forties, whereas he wouldn’t have made it to his fifties. Deep inhalation of tobacco is bad for the heart.

    AK: Could you please include sentence-ending periods *within* the blockquote tags? Thanks.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    BTW, could you elaborate on why exactly you consider coffee a 'superfood' if you haven't already? I enjoy drinking coffee and have read some pretty glowing reports of the health benefits of coffee, of at all places, on some Ukie websites. Just curious what you know about the topic that I don't?
    , @Thorfinnsson
    To be clear I'm not recommending that people take up smoking or that smoking is healthy. In additional to cigarette smoking being carcinogenic and poor for the circulatory system, it's immunosuppressive. It also makes you ugly.

    I just think that anti-tobacco puritanism is ridiculous in light of what else we allow without comment.

    For instance many offices are constantly putting out candy bowls and celebrating a birthday every week with cake.

    Alcohol consumption has soared this century.

    And we know that's puritanism because the tobacco haters also go after safer forms of tobacco. There's currently a ridiculous hysteria about vaping for instance, which is probably the safest way to consume tobacco. If anything we should be promoting vaping to existing smokers, but instead there are wild calls to ban it.
  150. @Mr. Hack

    Most smokers never develop lung cancers, yet tobacco is subject to extreme demonization and persecution. I like to joke that smokers are America’s most persecuted minority.
     
    But most cases of lung cancer are the result of smoking. Now, I don't think that the occasional cigar or bowl of aromatic tobaccos is a great health risk, but it's the incessant cigarette smoking patterns developed in the early-mid part of the 20th century that caused the necessary uproar. I remember my father who religiously smoked 3 packs of camel straights every day for decades. This habit screwed up his blood circulation and caused some serious problems in his legs. I also strongly suspect that his smoking contributed greatly to him having several cardiac arrests. He's lucky that he gave it all up in his forties, whereas he wouldn't have made it to his fifties. Deep inhalation of tobacco is bad for the heart.

    AK: Could you please include sentence-ending periods *within* the blockquote tags? Thanks.

    BTW, could you elaborate on why exactly you consider coffee a ‘superfood‘ if you haven’t already? I enjoy drinking coffee and have read some pretty glowing reports of the health benefits of coffee, of at all places, on some Ukie websites. Just curious what you know about the topic that I don’t?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Pretty much what you say. For instance a recent study found that coffee consumption in a fasted state increased ketone production. Research frequently finds such lovely effects from coffee (and tea).

    Coffee and tea, being concentrated plant products, also provide the healthy compounds (in the appropriate doses) like flavonoids and phytochemicals from plants that do not exist in animal foods.
  151. @Mr. Hack

    Most smokers never develop lung cancers, yet tobacco is subject to extreme demonization and persecution. I like to joke that smokers are America’s most persecuted minority.
     
    But most cases of lung cancer are the result of smoking. Now, I don't think that the occasional cigar or bowl of aromatic tobaccos is a great health risk, but it's the incessant cigarette smoking patterns developed in the early-mid part of the 20th century that caused the necessary uproar. I remember my father who religiously smoked 3 packs of camel straights every day for decades. This habit screwed up his blood circulation and caused some serious problems in his legs. I also strongly suspect that his smoking contributed greatly to him having several cardiac arrests. He's lucky that he gave it all up in his forties, whereas he wouldn't have made it to his fifties. Deep inhalation of tobacco is bad for the heart.

    AK: Could you please include sentence-ending periods *within* the blockquote tags? Thanks.

    To be clear I’m not recommending that people take up smoking or that smoking is healthy. In additional to cigarette smoking being carcinogenic and poor for the circulatory system, it’s immunosuppressive. It also makes you ugly.

    I just think that anti-tobacco puritanism is ridiculous in light of what else we allow without comment.

    For instance many offices are constantly putting out candy bowls and celebrating a birthday every week with cake.

    Alcohol consumption has soared this century.

    And we know that’s puritanism because the tobacco haters also go after safer forms of tobacco. There’s currently a ridiculous hysteria about vaping for instance, which is probably the safest way to consume tobacco. If anything we should be promoting vaping to existing smokers, but instead there are wild calls to ban it.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    We need to be promoting cocaine. Weed users should be summarily shot. LSD needs to be allowed but only if dropped off in deep caves, primeval forests, or the summits of very high mountains.
  152. @Mr. Hack
    BTW, could you elaborate on why exactly you consider coffee a 'superfood' if you haven't already? I enjoy drinking coffee and have read some pretty glowing reports of the health benefits of coffee, of at all places, on some Ukie websites. Just curious what you know about the topic that I don't?

    Pretty much what you say. For instance a recent study found that coffee consumption in a fasted state increased ketone production. Research frequently finds such lovely effects from coffee (and tea).

    Coffee and tea, being concentrated plant products, also provide the healthy compounds (in the appropriate doses) like flavonoids and phytochemicals from plants that do not exist in animal foods.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I found the article I had in mind and have translated it for you into English:

    There are numerous studies confirming both positive and negative properties of coffee:
    1. Antioxidants . Coffee is rich in antioxidants, such as chlorogenic acids and melanoidodines. Antioxidants help prevent oxidation - a process that causes the destruction of cells and aging. Melanoid dishes of roasted coffee have antioxidant effect.

    2. Parkinson's disease . Regular coffee intake reduces the risk of Parkinson's disease. A number of studies have shown that people who regularly use caffeine have significantly less chance of developing Parkinson's disease.

    3. Diabetes. The use of coffee can protect against the development of two types of diabetes. According to the study, moderate consumption of coffee, both with and without caffeine, reduces the risk of developing two types of diabetes in young and middle-aged women.

    4. Cirrhosis of the liver . The use of coffee protects against liver cirrhosis, especially from alcoholic liver cirrhosis.

    5. Gall bladder disease . There is plenty of evidence that coffee protects both men and women from gallstone disease.

    6. Stones in the kidneys . Coffee consumption reduces the probability of stomach formation in the kidneys. Coffee increases the amount of urine, preventing crystallization of calcium oxalate - the main component of urinary stones.

    7. Improvement of mental activity. Caffeine, which is contained in coffee, is a well-known stimulant. Coffee improves vigilance, attention and cheer. Coffee also accelerates the processing of information.

    8. Alzheimer's Disease . Regular use of coffee protects against Alzheimer's disease. Recent studies have shown that caffeine consumption, equivalent to five cups of coffee a day, reduces the accumulation of destructive plaques in the brain.

    9. Asthma . Caffeine, which is contained in coffee, is associated with theophylline, an old asthma medicine. Caffeine can improve respiratory function.

    10. Safety of caffeine . In 1958, caffeine was added to the list of safe substances
    http://www.aratta-ukraine.com/news_ua.php?id=4359

  153. @Sean
    Counterdominance deathsquad

    https://youtu.be/acOZT240bTA?t=993

    The late Henry Harpending, who had lived among the Bushmen, talked about this. He did not suggest it as a cause of homosexuality or increased learning ability though.

    Bit disappointed no one here thinks that Wrangham’s lynching theory of self domestication is worthy of discussion. It occurs to me that as being bullied as a child is the biggest behavioural indicator of later developing schizophrenia, pro-active communal killing of troublemakers may explain even more than Wrangham suggests. The part of his lecture where he talks about adults suckliing at the breast is pretty startling.

    • Replies: @notanon

    no one here thinks that Wrangham’s lynching theory of self domestication is worthy of discussion
     
    significant chance everyone here already agrees with it
  154. @Thorfinnsson
    To be clear I'm not recommending that people take up smoking or that smoking is healthy. In additional to cigarette smoking being carcinogenic and poor for the circulatory system, it's immunosuppressive. It also makes you ugly.

    I just think that anti-tobacco puritanism is ridiculous in light of what else we allow without comment.

    For instance many offices are constantly putting out candy bowls and celebrating a birthday every week with cake.

    Alcohol consumption has soared this century.

    And we know that's puritanism because the tobacco haters also go after safer forms of tobacco. There's currently a ridiculous hysteria about vaping for instance, which is probably the safest way to consume tobacco. If anything we should be promoting vaping to existing smokers, but instead there are wild calls to ban it.

    We need to be promoting cocaine. Weed users should be summarily shot. LSD needs to be allowed but only if dropped off in deep caves, primeval forests, or the summits of very high mountains.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    You can get rid of the nasty weed users by getting them to try LSD (not hard to do, since the effects have some similarities), and then 'drop them off' on the summits of very high mountains. You're too young to remember, but during its heyday during the sixties, many LSD trips were recorded where the imbibers thought that they could fly...unfortunately though, that wasn't the case.

    BTW, your buddy the Mad Bohemian Budvar, used to be a big proponent of the weed. He even posted some weed reviews within 'High Times'. I suspect he still imbibes, so he probably wouldn't take too kindly to your sentiments. :-)

  155. @Hyperborean

    I have heard that they have a lot of war programs on TV, with Japan naturally as the villain. I have always been a bit mystified by this. I ask myself, is this just historical political legacy – something from the Mao era that just continues? Or does it reflect a still current and existential fear for the CCP – that Chinese will become enamored of the large, homogeneous, Asian democracy on their doorstep?
     
    They also have a lot that feature the Nationalists. I saw bits of one where the Nationalists were dressed very snazzily, which to me seemed like it might defeat the point.

    Part of it is perhaps just inertia - Mao features on every note*, they also still teach atheism in schools and some bookstores have works by Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao and modern "capitalist" economics books on the same floor.

    But the important parts of the civil war (the Long March and the struggle against the Nationalists and the Japanese) are also the foundational myth of the CCP and their Great Patriotic War equivalent. They wouldn't really be able to relinquish that while still claiming continuity, which is the formal justification for their reign.

    *(There are some old notes below 1 yuan (1 and 5 Jiao) that are still in circulation that feature ethnic minorities instead but are not printed any more.)

    I don’t know, but it seems wrong-headed to me. All their villains should be gay, black Muslims and trannies, IMO, except for the ones that are white Americans who seek to promote diversity. But from what I have read of their current guidelines, such programming would be impossible.
     
    Africans are treated as backwards people in need of uplifting by their Chinese benevolent comrades.

    Vague Westerners are sometimes depicted as villains in contrast to Chinese heroes - ironically they are very Hollywood-style action films.

    There is one transexual on TV - Jin Xing:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jiv9p8qdPMk

    This video has a Tencent Video mark, I don't know how representative it is though:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XuDZnpT8Zw0

    I have noticed this about Western villains, and always thought it was kind of funny. It was also true of HK cinema to a certain extent. I think it probably has something to do with the Century of Humiliation – though there was a time when Hollywood did like foreign (white) villains, often with fake Eastern European accents.

    In the Bruce Lee film “Fist of Fury”, he sees white people walking into the park, but an Indian at the gate stops him and points to the sign “No Chinese and no dogs allowed.” I suppose the Japanese still come off as worse – telling him to bark like a dog. But HK cinema was trying to make inroads into the West.

    I think the above is very interesting scene. If I recall, there was about one park in the whole of China that Chinese were no allowed to go into, and, of course, it had no such sign, and may have been motivated by rational security fears. I find the whole Chinese experience and reaction in amazing contrast to what has happened to the West and the reaction of Europeans. I don’t think there was even 20,000 foreigners in China when the Boxer Rebellion happened – and it was quite violent.

    South Korea almost seems to have a similar flavor of white villains. I’m not overly familiar with their cinema, but it is possible it may specifically be anti-American.

    • Replies: @songbird
    In the wake of the fire at Notre Dame, some Weibo users apparently brought up the destruction of Yuanming Yuan by the French and British in 1860.

    I mean, not that I endorse it and some other destruction that happened later during the Boxer Rebellion, but it seems pretty funny for multiple reasons (though maybe it is a fringe viewpoint). 1.) The Palace wasn't that old at the time. 2.) It was an act in retaliation to barbaric diplomatic killings. 3.) It pales in comparison to the destruction carried out by the Chinese themselves during the Cultural Revolution.

    Though, if I am honest, I rather admire the Chinese ability to hold a grudge.
  156. @Anatoly Karlin
    We need to be promoting cocaine. Weed users should be summarily shot. LSD needs to be allowed but only if dropped off in deep caves, primeval forests, or the summits of very high mountains.

    You can get rid of the nasty weed users by getting them to try LSD (not hard to do, since the effects have some similarities), and then ‘drop them off’ on the summits of very high mountains. You’re too young to remember, but during its heyday during the sixties, many LSD trips were recorded where the imbibers thought that they could fly…unfortunately though, that wasn’t the case.

    BTW, your buddy the Mad Bohemian Budvar, used to be a big proponent of the weed. He even posted some weed reviews within ‘High Times’. I suspect he still imbibes, so he probably wouldn’t take too kindly to your sentiments. 🙂

  157. @Sean
    Bit disappointed no one here thinks that Wrangham's lynching theory of self domestication is worthy of discussion. It occurs to me that as being bullied as a child is the biggest behavioural indicator of later developing schizophrenia, pro-active communal killing of troublemakers may explain even more than Wrangham suggests. The part of his lecture where he talks about adults suckliing at the breast is pretty startling.

    no one here thinks that Wrangham’s lynching theory of self domestication is worthy of discussion

    significant chance everyone here already agrees with it

    • Replies: @Sean
    It's certainly an old idea the concept of self-domestication; first put forward by Naz..., sorry, German physical anthropologist Egon F. von Eickstedt in the early 30s. Carlton Coon talked about the reduced bone density of domesticated animals, and in humans "reduction" in the massive cranial size found in the Bronze age Corded ect. Konrad Lorenz, especially in his Waning Of Humaneness, wrote extensively about domestication in relation to shortening of the long bones, extremities and base of the skull, lack of discrimination in mating and quantity and quantity of food, loosened connective tissue, and promiscuous mating. Coon did say the older men among primitive people would get together and put an end to danger menin the night, which may well explain why there is so much fascination with fictional and real life murderers in popular culture and documentaries. Anyway none of the aforementioned thinkers explicitly made Wrangham's jump to individually harmless people indulging in proactively aggressive homicide on dangerous individuals as having been the cause of domestication.
  158. @LondonBob
    Movies are censored in China, in the Hangover the part with the naked Asian guy in the car boot if cut out of the film, so even those approved are then edited. The Chinese are right that the film and TV industry are a real danger.

    Movies are censored in China, in the Hangover the part with the naked Asian guy in the car boot if cut out of the film

    This I would also do. There is no sensible reason for male nudity in movies.

  159. @Thorfinnsson
    Pretty much what you say. For instance a recent study found that coffee consumption in a fasted state increased ketone production. Research frequently finds such lovely effects from coffee (and tea).

    Coffee and tea, being concentrated plant products, also provide the healthy compounds (in the appropriate doses) like flavonoids and phytochemicals from plants that do not exist in animal foods.

    I found the article I had in mind and have translated it for you into English:

    There are numerous studies confirming both positive and negative properties of coffee:
    1. Antioxidants . Coffee is rich in antioxidants, such as chlorogenic acids and melanoidodines. Antioxidants help prevent oxidation – a process that causes the destruction of cells and aging. Melanoid dishes of roasted coffee have antioxidant effect.

    2. Parkinson’s disease . Regular coffee intake reduces the risk of Parkinson’s disease. A number of studies have shown that people who regularly use caffeine have significantly less chance of developing Parkinson’s disease.

    3. Diabetes. The use of coffee can protect against the development of two types of diabetes. According to the study, moderate consumption of coffee, both with and without caffeine, reduces the risk of developing two types of diabetes in young and middle-aged women.

    4. Cirrhosis of the liver . The use of coffee protects against liver cirrhosis, especially from alcoholic liver cirrhosis.

    5. Gall bladder disease . There is plenty of evidence that coffee protects both men and women from gallstone disease.

    6. Stones in the kidneys . Coffee consumption reduces the probability of stomach formation in the kidneys. Coffee increases the amount of urine, preventing crystallization of calcium oxalate – the main component of urinary stones.

    7. Improvement of mental activity. Caffeine, which is contained in coffee, is a well-known stimulant. Coffee improves vigilance, attention and cheer. Coffee also accelerates the processing of information.

    8. Alzheimer’s Disease . Regular use of coffee protects against Alzheimer’s disease. Recent studies have shown that caffeine consumption, equivalent to five cups of coffee a day, reduces the accumulation of destructive plaques in the brain.

    9. Asthma . Caffeine, which is contained in coffee, is associated with theophylline, an old asthma medicine. Caffeine can improve respiratory function.

    10. Safety of caffeine . In 1958, caffeine was added to the list of safe substances
    http://www.aratta-ukraine.com/news_ua.php?id=4359

  160. @notanon

    no one here thinks that Wrangham’s lynching theory of self domestication is worthy of discussion
     
    significant chance everyone here already agrees with it

    It’s certainly an old idea the concept of self-domestication; first put forward by Naz…, sorry, German physical anthropologist Egon F. von Eickstedt in the early 30s. Carlton Coon talked about the reduced bone density of domesticated animals, and in humans “reduction” in the massive cranial size found in the Bronze age Corded ect. Konrad Lorenz, especially in his Waning Of Humaneness, wrote extensively about domestication in relation to shortening of the long bones, extremities and base of the skull, lack of discrimination in mating and quantity and quantity of food, loosened connective tissue, and promiscuous mating. Coon did say the older men among primitive people would get together and put an end to danger menin the night, which may well explain why there is so much fascination with fictional and real life murderers in popular culture and documentaries. Anyway none of the aforementioned thinkers explicitly made Wrangham’s jump to individually harmless people indulging in proactively aggressive homicide on dangerous individuals as having been the cause of domestication.

    • Replies: @notanon

    none of the aforementioned thinkers explicitly made Wrangham’s jump to individually harmless people indulging in proactively aggressive homicide on dangerous individuals as having been the cause of domestication.
     
    fair enough - i expect "torches and pitchforks" was one method, getting together to find a suitable volunteer sheriff to do the deed would be another (a common trope in westerns) and imo the main one: a gang of dangerous individuals making themselves the ruling elite and getting rid of rival dangerous individuals.

    interesting now i think of it - westerns being so resonant because the "wild west" was ancient history repeated (the formation of complex societies from scratch).
  161. @Thorfinnsson


    Without much AI, you could program them ahead of time. They could navigate like birds even without GPS, or secure communications. Their targets would be pre-selected – easy to do with the kind of spy sats that exist now.
     
    Targets move.

    The trajectory of spy satellites is known.

    Their instructions would be basic, mathematical – destroy all planes and hangers on airbase – destroy all ships that look like X, Y , or Z in zone 25. Even unarmed ones could potentially seriously change the amount of intel gathered.
     
    Reconnaissance drones are nothing new and have been used for over 50 years.

    Target identification is a sticky problem. Planes can be moved, camouflaged, etc.

    There are so many potential strengths. They could accelerate faster than pilots, require shorter runways. Information is duplicative, so they would not need to be trained, only built. They would be cheaper. There could be swarms of them. You could really minimize the factor of unit cost and steamroll your enemies with shear numbers.
     
    A high performance UCAV would still have giant engines, a big radar, lots of internal fuel, many weapons stations, etc. It would be a big, heavy, expensive aircraft.

    Some size and expense would of course be saved by deleting the cockpit and life support systems, but not that much. Just look at a photo of an F-22 and see how small the cockpit is relative to the rest of the aircraft.

    There are real personnel savings here, but that's somewhat illusory too. A UCAV still requires maintenance crews, squadron commanders, engineering support, etc. A bigger advantage is that UCAVs could go to war right off the production line without also getting a pilot through flight school which takes hundreds of hours (and requires instructors, trainer aircraft, more maintenance personnel, more bases, etc.).

    I'm a proponent of "optionally-manned" combat aircraft. If AI technology ever matures to the level its proponents claim it will, then you just cashier the pilots or switch them to desk duty. If it fails to, you still have your pilots. The AI capability would also be useful in the event pilots are incapacitated in combat or you need to send warplanes on some kind of suicide mission.


    I think the main hurdles are political. It is the same with the deployment of non-deadly weapons.
     
    Yes, and there are also labor problems. Pilots themselves object to being replaced, and pilots run most air forces.

    Targets move.

    True, but there is always first strike advantage. I think of the devastating attack on Clarke Air Base. Plus, it is harder to move infrastructure, like hangers and fuel tanks. Navy ships would likely be easily identifiable. If you ask me, air power is more concentrated nowadays, after many base closings. An attack on Edwards would potentially be devastating.

    Some size and expense would of course be saved by deleting the cockpit and life support systems, but not that much.

    Also, quite true, but the equation potentially changes a lot, if you think of something like a carrier. Drones need not all be long range – they can be short range, but carried to the battlefield by other drones, maybe ships or subs. In such a case, they don’t need living quarters or food.

    Drones can also be their own missiles, which is another savings of weight.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Immovable infrastructure known in advance owing to photographic reconnaissance can already be attacked. Drones change little here, especially since such bases are usually heavily defended and thus attacked with standoff weapons like cruise missiles and theater ballistic missiles.

    Reducing size is quite obviously an advantage, but UAV proponents oversell this advantage (except when it comes to micro-drones). Our aircraft carriers for instance currently embark far fewer aircraft than they're capable of carrying to begin with because of budgetary reasons.
  162. If our pessimistic traditionalist Aussie friend D for DOOM is reading have a look at this: https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/smart-money/financial-literacy/

    This article is a good example of why HBD should be promoted even outside of our typical political concerns.

    To seemingly every social problem the solution is always the same–more EDUCATION.

    It needs to be strongly put out there that some problems simply cannot be solved. Horse to water and all that.

    Acknowledgement of the reality of HBD would encourage a discussion about cognitive oppression, usury, and the immoral exploitation of the dull and the poor.

    • Replies: @notanon
    wishful thinking maybe but it might even lead to forcing wannabe politicians to take a basic numeracy test which i think would be the single most useful political change you could make.
  163. @songbird

    Targets move.
     
    True, but there is always first strike advantage. I think of the devastating attack on Clarke Air Base. Plus, it is harder to move infrastructure, like hangers and fuel tanks. Navy ships would likely be easily identifiable. If you ask me, air power is more concentrated nowadays, after many base closings. An attack on Edwards would potentially be devastating.

    Some size and expense would of course be saved by deleting the cockpit and life support systems, but not that much.
     
    Also, quite true, but the equation potentially changes a lot, if you think of something like a carrier. Drones need not all be long range - they can be short range, but carried to the battlefield by other drones, maybe ships or subs. In such a case, they don't need living quarters or food.

    Drones can also be their own missiles, which is another savings of weight.

    Immovable infrastructure known in advance owing to photographic reconnaissance can already be attacked. Drones change little here, especially since such bases are usually heavily defended and thus attacked with standoff weapons like cruise missiles and theater ballistic missiles.

    Reducing size is quite obviously an advantage, but UAV proponents oversell this advantage (except when it comes to micro-drones). Our aircraft carriers for instance currently embark far fewer aircraft than they’re capable of carrying to begin with because of budgetary reasons.

  164. Is this its only use? I am asking this, because it means we should safely assume that any keto “user” is a bipolar, and a woman, or something else trapped in the brain of a woman.

    No, really, please stop referring to it as if it’s anything more than a fad, on a par with paleo (or perhaps they are the same?), or the zodiac. A calorie is a calorie, and a gram of sodium is a gram of sodium. Anything else is secondary for healthy people. For example, a gram of cholesterol is the boogeyman of a long-gone generation of Jewish doctors in cahoots with the US corn industry.

    Also, the body can, and does, alter its pH mainly as a side effect of proper breathing (acidity indicating to the brain you are not breathing). pH is also a side show in regulation of body potassium and body nitrogen. Measuring your pee’s pH is going to show only results of regulation of other three things, more important for the body, and quite distinct from each other.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I assume you are responding to me since you mentioned BPD.

    I shared that study because it was the first study related to keto available on a Twitter account focused on health that I follow.

    The diet was originally developed to treat epilepsy. It's useful for other conditions like diabetes, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, and even cancer (warning: do not take this as an endorsement to refuse chemo).

    It's untrue that a calorie is a calorie in the human body as different calories are metabolized with different levels of losses. They furthermore provide different levels of satiety and result in different physiological impacts on things such as blood sugar, insulin production, mTOR activation, etc.

    If you're referring to those weirdos who obsess over pissing on keto stix I agree that's weird and stupid. All humans go into ketosis on occasion, and unless perhaps you have epilepsy it's not desirable to be in ketosis all the time since insulin is anabolic and required for many functions in the body.

    I use "keto" interchangeably with LCHF (low carb high fat).

    The paleo diet is usually LCHF (and its #1 popularizer, Mark Sisson, is an LCHF and keto proponent) but isn't always. It stresses avoiding grains and sugar. Sometimes they rehabilitate foods they had previously excommunicated (legumes and potatoes were once verboten but are now permitted).
    , @Daniel Chieh

    A calorie is a calorie, and a gram of sodium is a gram of sodium. Anything else is secondary for healthy people
     
    This should be self-evidently incorrect. If I give you only soda to drink as your only meal, you will have enough calories but rapidly become sickly and eventually die.

    The digestive system is obviously more complex than this. I've linked to the biochemistry before, but it's worth sharing again.

    https://ketoschool.com/the-science-behind-fat-metabolism-60f7a3f678d0
  165. @HammerJack
    Who were you before? I lost my credentials too but it's been months since I posted before today and I can't even remember what my handle was.

    I'm not into fad diets of any kind, though I try to moderate fat and sugar intake. But anything which might help tubby yanks lose some weight is absolutely o.k. with me.

    I started as Dacian Soros, but i got rejected by the comments system about one month ago. I went for Dacian Julien Soros, and it got taken. Next, I was Dacia’ n Soros. I think only the first one is registered by someone else, but WordPress decided that the other ones are in use.

    I am trying to make it clear, from the name, that I am going to comment from a Romanian perspective, so that people who don’t care would PgDown more easily 🙂

  166. @Dacian Julien Soros bis
    Is this its only use? I am asking this, because it means we should safely assume that any keto "user" is a bipolar, and a woman, or something else trapped in the brain of a woman.

    No, really, please stop referring to it as if it's anything more than a fad, on a par with paleo (or perhaps they are the same?), or the zodiac. A calorie is a calorie, and a gram of sodium is a gram of sodium. Anything else is secondary for healthy people. For example, a gram of cholesterol is the boogeyman of a long-gone generation of Jewish doctors in cahoots with the US corn industry.

    Also, the body can, and does, alter its pH mainly as a side effect of proper breathing (acidity indicating to the brain you are not breathing). pH is also a side show in regulation of body potassium and body nitrogen. Measuring your pee's pH is going to show only results of regulation of other three things, more important for the body, and quite distinct from each other.

    I assume you are responding to me since you mentioned BPD.

    I shared that study because it was the first study related to keto available on a Twitter account focused on health that I follow.

    The diet was originally developed to treat epilepsy. It’s useful for other conditions like diabetes, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, and even cancer (warning: do not take this as an endorsement to refuse chemo).

    It’s untrue that a calorie is a calorie in the human body as different calories are metabolized with different levels of losses. They furthermore provide different levels of satiety and result in different physiological impacts on things such as blood sugar, insulin production, mTOR activation, etc.

    If you’re referring to those weirdos who obsess over pissing on keto stix I agree that’s weird and stupid. All humans go into ketosis on occasion, and unless perhaps you have epilepsy it’s not desirable to be in ketosis all the time since insulin is anabolic and required for many functions in the body.

    I use “keto” interchangeably with LCHF (low carb high fat).

    The paleo diet is usually LCHF (and its #1 popularizer, Mark Sisson, is an LCHF and keto proponent) but isn’t always. It stresses avoiding grains and sugar. Sometimes they rehabilitate foods they had previously excommunicated (legumes and potatoes were once verboten but are now permitted).

  167. How US went from telecoms leader to 5G also-ran without challenger to China’s Huawei

    The US is remarkably weak in the core technology hardware space underlying 5G and what’s coming after that. The story details how that happened (it was far from inevitable). The lesson here is that all deregulation is not necessarily a good thing. State-led capitalism is sometimes a help and just letting markets rip can be an ideological blind alley, as the US has discovered.

    Parenthetically, Huawei’s 2019 Q1 revenue went up by almost 40%.

    • Replies: @notanon
    "don't worry guys we can off-shore the manufacturing and keep the high tech research"
    signed
    The Economist 1982
  168. I hope you are all using this blessed 22nd April to celebrate the life and memory of St. Stephen Lawrence of Lewisham (PBUH).

  169. @songbird
    I have noticed this about Western villains, and always thought it was kind of funny. It was also true of HK cinema to a certain extent. I think it probably has something to do with the Century of Humiliation - though there was a time when Hollywood did like foreign (white) villains, often with fake Eastern European accents.

    In the Bruce Lee film "Fist of Fury", he sees white people walking into the park, but an Indian at the gate stops him and points to the sign "No Chinese and no dogs allowed." I suppose the Japanese still come off as worse - telling him to bark like a dog. But HK cinema was trying to make inroads into the West.

    I think the above is very interesting scene. If I recall, there was about one park in the whole of China that Chinese were no allowed to go into, and, of course, it had no such sign, and may have been motivated by rational security fears. I find the whole Chinese experience and reaction in amazing contrast to what has happened to the West and the reaction of Europeans. I don't think there was even 20,000 foreigners in China when the Boxer Rebellion happened - and it was quite violent.

    South Korea almost seems to have a similar flavor of white villains. I'm not overly familiar with their cinema, but it is possible it may specifically be anti-American.

    In the wake of the fire at Notre Dame, some Weibo users apparently brought up the destruction of Yuanming Yuan by the French and British in 1860.

    I mean, not that I endorse it and some other destruction that happened later during the Boxer Rebellion, but it seems pretty funny for multiple reasons (though maybe it is a fringe viewpoint). 1.) The Palace wasn’t that old at the time. 2.) It was an act in retaliation to barbaric diplomatic killings. 3.) It pales in comparison to the destruction carried out by the Chinese themselves during the Cultural Revolution.

    Though, if I am honest, I rather admire the Chinese ability to hold a grudge.

  170. @for-the-record
    But I can see that there’s really a big difference in nutritional value between the caged and free range chicken eggs!

    Caveat emptor:

    https://cdn.thepennyhoarder.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/12165504/EGG-GRAPHIC-TEST-02-03-01.jpg

    https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/food/cage-free-vs-free-range-vs-pastured-eggs/

    Your egg series sorely needs a side column of bears getting worse and worse outfits.

    Chicken do not have emotions, and even people struggle with happiness. Talking about the happy chick makes me unhappy. I am losing faith in humanity.

    A large majority of the planet already has all the required nutrients in their usual food. Maybe someone in a remote Afghan village doesn’t, but did you or anyone you ever met have scurvy or ricketts?

    Finally, people here doubt the words of the US government, and believe that hundreds of thousands of employees are engaged in conspiracies to fake Moon landing, JFK murder, or 9/11. But we should believe a for-profit, privately-help corp., which MUST move the eggs from the chicken’s ass to the packaging machine?

    In 2013, multiple UK and Dutch businesses labeled Romanian mustang meat as French beef, a lie that was easily denied by a one-hour, 5-dollar DNA test – and yet it went on for a year. What would prevent chicken eggs from being mislabeled as “kosher-free”, or whatever else Peterson’s daughter says you must have?

    • Replies: @notanon
    i don't know if the vitamin D in eggs requires sunlight - maybe chickens make it some other way and / or the artificial kind of vitamin D works the same - plus eggs have a lot of other nutrition apart from vitamin D so it's not the sole reason for eating lots of eggs but...

    keeping your vitamin D levels high somehow or other during the winter is a big deal.
  171. @Sean
    It's certainly an old idea the concept of self-domestication; first put forward by Naz..., sorry, German physical anthropologist Egon F. von Eickstedt in the early 30s. Carlton Coon talked about the reduced bone density of domesticated animals, and in humans "reduction" in the massive cranial size found in the Bronze age Corded ect. Konrad Lorenz, especially in his Waning Of Humaneness, wrote extensively about domestication in relation to shortening of the long bones, extremities and base of the skull, lack of discrimination in mating and quantity and quantity of food, loosened connective tissue, and promiscuous mating. Coon did say the older men among primitive people would get together and put an end to danger menin the night, which may well explain why there is so much fascination with fictional and real life murderers in popular culture and documentaries. Anyway none of the aforementioned thinkers explicitly made Wrangham's jump to individually harmless people indulging in proactively aggressive homicide on dangerous individuals as having been the cause of domestication.

    none of the aforementioned thinkers explicitly made Wrangham’s jump to individually harmless people indulging in proactively aggressive homicide on dangerous individuals as having been the cause of domestication.

    fair enough – i expect “torches and pitchforks” was one method, getting together to find a suitable volunteer sheriff to do the deed would be another (a common trope in westerns) and imo the main one: a gang of dangerous individuals making themselves the ruling elite and getting rid of rival dangerous individuals.

    interesting now i think of it – westerns being so resonant because the “wild west” was ancient history repeated (the formation of complex societies from scratch).

    • Replies: @Sean
    Yes in Westerns the cowardly townspeople and corrupt sheriff being terrorised by the local big shot are a common trope. And now instead of Westerns there are police dramas in which the renegade cop who plays by his own rules is a thinly disguised vigilante. These storylines obviously satisfy something in the primordial mind. I think it could work if imposed from above by an elite as with:

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491501300114
    Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress. The decline in personal violence is usually attributed to harsher punishment and the longer-term effects of cultural conditioning. It may also be, however, that this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence.
     
    However, where Wrangham's theory gets novel is when he says it was the most peaceful and cooperative people, the ones without any kind of elite, such as the Bushmen (who are also the most primitive of course) that were coming together to publicly kill a dangerous individual. I have read that the relatively large female bonobos will bite off a finger from rowdy males (while among chimps by contrast the barrel chested dominant male and his minions in many cases take females by force).

    It is also perhaps not coincidental that in schizophrenia the dread of a conspiracy against one is a prominent symptom, as is anhedonia.
  172. @Dacian Julien Soros bis
    Your egg series sorely needs a side column of bears getting worse and worse outfits.

    Chicken do not have emotions, and even people struggle with happiness. Talking about the happy chick makes me unhappy. I am losing faith in humanity.

    A large majority of the planet already has all the required nutrients in their usual food. Maybe someone in a remote Afghan village doesn't, but did you or anyone you ever met have scurvy or ricketts?

    Finally, people here doubt the words of the US government, and believe that hundreds of thousands of employees are engaged in conspiracies to fake Moon landing, JFK murder, or 9/11. But we should believe a for-profit, privately-help corp., which MUST move the eggs from the chicken's ass to the packaging machine?

    In 2013, multiple UK and Dutch businesses labeled Romanian mustang meat as French beef, a lie that was easily denied by a one-hour, 5-dollar DNA test - and yet it went on for a year. What would prevent chicken eggs from being mislabeled as "kosher-free", or whatever else Peterson's daughter says you must have?

    i don’t know if the vitamin D in eggs requires sunlight – maybe chickens make it some other way and / or the artificial kind of vitamin D works the same – plus eggs have a lot of other nutrition apart from vitamin D so it’s not the sole reason for eating lots of eggs but…

    keeping your vitamin D levels high somehow or other during the winter is a big deal.

  173. @Thulean Friend
    How US went from telecoms leader to 5G also-ran without challenger to China’s Huawei

    The US is remarkably weak in the core technology hardware space underlying 5G and what's coming after that. The story details how that happened (it was far from inevitable). The lesson here is that all deregulation is not necessarily a good thing. State-led capitalism is sometimes a help and just letting markets rip can be an ideological blind alley, as the US has discovered.

    Parenthetically, Huawei's 2019 Q1 revenue went up by almost 40%.

    “don’t worry guys we can off-shore the manufacturing and keep the high tech research”
    signed
    The Economist 1982

  174. @Thorfinnsson
    If our pessimistic traditionalist Aussie friend D for DOOM is reading have a look at this: https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/smart-money/financial-literacy/

    This article is a good example of why HBD should be promoted even outside of our typical political concerns.

    To seemingly every social problem the solution is always the same--more EDUCATION.

    It needs to be strongly put out there that some problems simply cannot be solved. Horse to water and all that.

    Acknowledgement of the reality of HBD would encourage a discussion about cognitive oppression, usury, and the immoral exploitation of the dull and the poor.

    wishful thinking maybe but it might even lead to forcing wannabe politicians to take a basic numeracy test which i think would be the single most useful political change you could make.

  175. @songbird
    The idea of a paleo diet seems pretty crazy. Firstly, because it is impossible to reconstruct accurately. Secondly, since there are so many sweeps associated with digestive genes, along with general genetic changes since paleolithic times. I think Chinese have an intestine which is at least half again as long - that is a pretty big change.

    If you were trying to target the optimal diet, based on the theory that what your body is most adapted to is best, you would probably have to try to target what the majority of your ancestors were eating in about 1492 AD.

    In my case, I'm not even sure what that was, other than sour-milk and probably butter. Big pass on the first one, which was probably their main source of protein, so looks like the ancestor diet is out of the question for me.

    target what the majority of your ancestors were eating in about 1492 AD

    or even more recently than that – thinking about this some more my grand-parent’s diet in modern “macro” terms would be:

    moderate carbs, moderate protein, moderate fat

    and the anti-fat campaign turned that into:

    high carbs, moderate protein, low fat

    so in a way all paleo and keto do is push you back towards what was the standard diet (for northern euros) less than a century ago and after a year or so of doing that and then slacking off a bit you’ll pretty much be back with your grand-parent’s diet again (with less bread and much less sugar).

    • Replies: @songbird
    My father did not eat certain foods growing up that I would miss, like pizza. They just weren't typical American foods and hadn't really crossed beyond the ethnic line.

    My mother didn't always have meat. When she did, it was often things like liver or tongue. She came from a big family in a relatively poor country. When they had eggs, some would not get an egg. The luckier ones would get a part of it - the top of the egg.

    I think it would be hard to give up the idea of a supermarket. We eat better than the kings of old, so I think that is why the idea of a macro diet has an appeal. I'm not sure how well my American grandparents ate. I figure they probably had a lot less fruit in winter - I think that would be tough.

    The idea that the diet of older generations killed them earlier might very well be fallacious. Many vaccines did not exist, and if you were exposed to something that killed a sibling, that might have taken a few years off the end of your life.
  176. I have a theory Americans are fat because diets are deliberately designed to have too few calories, so Americans can’t stick to them. They then give up on any restraint and just pig away – because why not, if it’s impossible to eat the recommended amount?

    And I’m convinced that this is done on purpose by large food companies. I read somewhere our GDP would drop by a ridiculous amount if we just ate 30% less.

    Americans dieters are frequently told to eat 1,200 or 1,600 calories, and a “normal” (non-dieting) calorie intake is set at 2,000.

    How did they get this 2,000 figure? Well, they had at the time several studies showing it was way too low for average people, and only suitable for post-menopausal women and children. But they made that the standard recommendation anyways to discourage overeating.

    But no normal man can eat that little, and its too little for many if not most normal women also.

    For instance, Japan, the thinnest country in the developed world, has an average daily caloric intake of 2,800 calories. In Japan, female BMI has actually been declining in the past two decades, and the only countries with similar BMIs are Sudan, and places that deal with starvation.

    The Minnesotta Starvation experiment, carried out in the 40s I think, fed its participants 1,600 calories per day – a fairly standard American diet recommendation today, even a bit on the mid to high range. The men in this study all suffered serious mental and emotional issues, one cutting off his fingers, were obsessed by food, and lost tons of weight. They were all traumatized for years after.

    And it’s worth noting that the researchers knew enough enough at the time to consider 1,600 daily calories as starvation level.

    I personally have had my abs showing eating what I now calculate to be about 2,800 calories (at the time I never thought in terms of calories).

    So paradoxically, I conclude that Americans need to feel they are allowed to eat more, in order to be motivated to eat less.

    All these weird fad diets that pop up in America are a desperate attempt to deal with a tragic situation, the result of science trying to supplant tradition. In fact, science knows very little about nutrition, it is a young science. But it pretends otherwise, of course, as in so many other areas, like intelligence research.

    The best thing for any American to do is structure a meal plan based on traditional eating habits that lasted till the 70s, which would require some research. Then adjust based on hunger. The key thing is moderation. Too much hunger is as bad as too much satiety.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Most people regulate their eating through hunger (novel concept).

    I think the main problem is the increased convenience of food consumption. Used to be people simply had 2-3 square meals a day.

    Now there's constant snacking in between meals as well as substantial consumption of caloric beverages.

    There are keto/LCHF people who get excited about buying or making fun keto food products like KETO FAT BOMBS and eat them as snacks and wonder why they don't lose weight as the diet promises. Chinese riddle for you...

    LCHF obviously isn't required to maintain a healthy bodyweight. Just visit Vietnam. Or upper class parts of the West. It just makes it easier and has other benefits (including the psychological and spiritual benefits you describe that come from discipline, taboo, separation, etc.).
  177. @Kimppis

    I was unsure if I should count the MiG-31s and Su-34s, because I was more thinking in terms of air superiority roles – what can Russia field against NATO air forces if there was a danger of conflict?
     
    Yeah, but both are multirole aircraft with decent BVR-capabilities at least. It of course means that F-15Es etc. should be counted as well.

    Regarding China (I don’t know which debate of Karlin and Martyanov you’re referring to), are you aware that the Chinese 5th generation fighters have no cannons?
     
    Yes. Although I'm not sure that's actually confirmed. By the way, those sources and authors are questionable, to say the least. I wouldn't take people like David Axe and Alex Lockie seriously at all.

    For one thing, if I remember correctly, Andreas Rupprecht (aka Deino) has complained several times how he is constantly quoted out of context by these idiots, in order to fit into their "Chinese military is actually weak" narrative. So it probably happened again here.

    Karlin vs. Martyanov. Very entertaining, but off-topic: https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258131

    After quick browsing, this comment sounds plausible:

    That's incorrect. The J-20 has a gun compartment but no gun (according to yankeesama) currently to save weight and because firing the gun damages the stealth coating. The weight and paint issues will be sorted out in the future. It would be ludicrous for the J-20 - primarily an air-superiority fighter - not to have a close-range weapon for going up against enemy stealth fighters.
     
    And:

    Why is this even an point of argument? The source that claimed that the J-20 has no gun also stated that the aircraft has a space for a cannon should the need arise.

    It is merely an issue of installing a cannon if a sortie requires such armament.
     
    Even this is better than most articles on National Interest or Business Insider (lmao):
    https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/2019/03/10/advanced-helmet-pl-10-missile-ensure-j-20s-killing-of-f-35-f-22/

    So basically his argument is that J-20's advanced helmet + the short-range PL-10 missile is the winning combo.

    In any case, the "Chinese 5th gen fighters have zero dogfighting abilities" clickbait is obviously total nonsense.

    You have good points, and some people take their wishful thinking regarding the F-35 a little too far, but I think you are too pessimistic. I really don't think the F-35 is a silver bullet, no matter how many hundreds are churned out annually. And some F-35 critics argue that while the plane itself isn't that expensive anymore, its maintenance requirements in general are so demanding and costly that the sortie and availability rates are... bad. There's probably at least some truth to that, especially when we are talking about smaller countries and air forces.

    That said, with the current and planned production rates, if we assume the F-35 is anywhere near as good as advertised, it would basically mean that the US is becoming militarily and technologically more dominant, even vs. China. (One major caveat: their very vulnerable basing? But that's it? They would actually be dominant once in the air?) But that is not supported by almost any other indicator or military program. Or is it? There's one that comes close, though. It's the "China can't into nuclear subs, EVER" meme, but it's even more obviously false, in my opinion.

    And if that's the case, China (and even the US? Or Russia) wouldn't still be procuring very large numbers of 4.5th gen fighters. Interestingly, it would also mean that in a hypothetical conflict between the UK and France (near equals), for example, the latter would be at a massive disadvantage, as only a few F-35 would wipe the floor with 4.5th gen Rafales (at least theoretically, as long as the F-35s wouldn't run out of missiles). That makes no sense. Now there are probably better examples, and you could argue that the comparison is stupid because France is not attempting to challenge "The Empire" and is in many ways just a vassal, so it doesn't count, but still.

    Lastly, we have Turkey's S-400 deal. It's almost as if Turkey chose the S-400 over the F-35 + Patriot? I don't think it's necessarily that simple (or rather, it obviously isn't), but such a conclusion wouldn't be too ludicrous at all. Or how dumb are the Turks?

    Almost forgot the bombers. Russia is not only "prioritizing" the Tu-160 over the Su-57 program (I'm not sure it's actually true though, hence the "") , but as I pointed out in my previous post, Russia has prioritized multirole Su-30s (which are replacing some of the remaining Su-24s) and fighter bombers Su-34 over the air-to-air focused Su-35s as well. And yes, they are planning to deeply modernize some Tu-22Ms and even Su-25s too. The Russian military must have good reasons for that?

    Karlin vs. Martyanov. Very entertaining, but off-topic: https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258131

    Just read this.

    I think what Martyanov means by “enclosed technological cycles” is the ability to to manufacture final goods without needing to import raw materials, intermediate goods, and capital goods.

    This has the benefit of reducing a state’s dependence on foreign trade, but it generally comes at the cost of reduced economic efficiency. Martyanov is a Sovok who dismisses “bourgeois economics” as pseudoscience, so he would either deny the penalty exists or dismiss it as irrelevant.

    He says something interesting in another comment in that thread:

    Any talk about “economy” within framework of modern Western “economism” (a euphemism for FIRE) is a waste of time. There is no real economy without enclosed technological cycles–that’s the name of the game and always was since the start of industrial age. Father of liberalism Herbert Spencer abhorred national industrial self-sustainability as an indicator of militarism. Paradoxically, he was partially correct with this association.

    His first sentence is simply Sovokism (and actually beyond that–more on that later), but then he gets to the core of his economic doctrine.

    Martyanov actually has an economic worldview somewhat similar to Adolf Hitler, who considered dependence on trade to be dangerous to the state’s self-sufficiency and military power. If a state doesn’t have overwhelming military control of its trade routes (which Germany lacked, as does Russia today) that’s obviously true.

    Most major powers try to balance this tradeoff by have some level of self-sufficiency for their military-industrial complex, while integrating their civilian-industrial sectors into the world trade system to increase economic efficiency.

    Russia and the United States are relatively unique in having nearly completely self-sufficient military industrial complexes which can produce every class of weapon and munition without substantial foreign input.

    Martyanov being a Sovok, this is the only economy that matters to him. And on a certain crude level, it’s correct. Sure, a lot of countries are more prosperous than Russia. But Russia, like Samson, can at any moment pull down the temple thanks to its ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES. So [email protected]#$ those prosperous vassalized Kraut-dummies! Sarmat ICBMs > Mercedes-Benz cars. Russsssssia STRONK!

    The error military-industrial types, especially of the Soviet variety, make is in generalizing this to the rest of the economy. It’s certainly true that Embraer doesn’t have the capability to produce aircraft without imported components. But compare the sales figures of Embraer to Sukhoi (ignoring, for the moment, that the Superjet is not the product of an enclosed Russian technological cycle) and it’s clear that the winner is Embraer.

    Martyanov, like a lot of Western dissidents and foreign anti-Americans, makes the very basic error of thinking the US economy is “fake” (despite containing quite a lot of ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES). You see, banking is not part of the actual economy. Debt is evil (it’s in the Bible after all), and the US Dollar is just a worthless scrap of paper. The whole house of cards is going to collapse Real Soon Now…

    Karlin demanded that Martyanov produce a way of quantifying this. It seems to be that the way of doing so would be to apply the economic complexity approach to an economy’s output of final manufactured goods and subtract all imports involved in the production of these final goods (raw materials, intermediate goods, capital goods, and intellectual property). To this one would add as well the net trade balance in final manufactured goods.

    • Agree: AP
    • Disagree: Yevardian
    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @AP
    One good relic of Sovok in Ukraine is that Ukraine retains some capability of building its own weapons. Here is an interesting article about Ukraine's own anti-tank missiles in use:

    https://medium.com/dfrlab/minskmonitor-ukraines-anti-tank-missiles-at-the-front-d08a5f3b1e7a

    Larger native missile systems:

    https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-expands-its-missile-capabilities/
    , @Mitleser

    The error military-industrial types, especially of the Soviet variety, make is in generalizing this to the rest of the economy. It’s certainly true that Embraer doesn’t have the capability to produce aircraft without imported components. But compare the sales figures of Embraer to Sukhoi (ignoring, for the moment, that the Superjet is not the product of an enclosed Russian technological cycle) and it’s clear that the winner is Embraer.
     
    That is a bad example, considering how imported components caused issues for the SSJ (the problems of the "French" engines, no orders from Russian MoD and Iran possible).

    It is telling that there is opposition to using engines from the same company for other Russian aircrafts.

    https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1116447901583060995

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    It is rather funny my rather middle of the way initial comment - which is obviously true, Russia does have a very substantial manufacturing sector (contra that Akuleyev fellow), but it is not internationally competitive (as Martyanov claims, apparently confusing his "enclosed technological cycles" for that) - provoked such an infuriated response. I don't even recall making any particular value judgments there, though my default position is that autarky is better to the extent it doesn't put a major crimp on efficiency and makes one less vulnerable to sanctions (obviously a germane issue in Russia's case, and in China's). Ah yes, and there was also that hilarity with the distinction between industrial vs. manufacturing production.
  178. @AaronB
    I have a theory Americans are fat because diets are deliberately designed to have too few calories, so Americans can't stick to them. They then give up on any restraint and just pig away - because why not, if it's impossible to eat the recommended amount?

    And I'm convinced that this is done on purpose by large food companies. I read somewhere our GDP would drop by a ridiculous amount if we just ate 30% less.

    Americans dieters are frequently told to eat 1,200 or 1,600 calories, and a "normal" (non-dieting) calorie intake is set at 2,000.

    How did they get this 2,000 figure? Well, they had at the time several studies showing it was way too low for average people, and only suitable for post-menopausal women and children. But they made that the standard recommendation anyways to discourage overeating.

    But no normal man can eat that little, and its too little for many if not most normal women also.

    For instance, Japan, the thinnest country in the developed world, has an average daily caloric intake of 2,800 calories. In Japan, female BMI has actually been declining in the past two decades, and the only countries with similar BMIs are Sudan, and places that deal with starvation.

    The Minnesotta Starvation experiment, carried out in the 40s I think, fed its participants 1,600 calories per day - a fairly standard American diet recommendation today, even a bit on the mid to high range. The men in this study all suffered serious mental and emotional issues, one cutting off his fingers, were obsessed by food, and lost tons of weight. They were all traumatized for years after.

    And it's worth noting that the researchers knew enough enough at the time to consider 1,600 daily calories as starvation level.

    I personally have had my abs showing eating what I now calculate to be about 2,800 calories (at the time I never thought in terms of calories).

    So paradoxically, I conclude that Americans need to feel they are allowed to eat more, in order to be motivated to eat less.

    All these weird fad diets that pop up in America are a desperate attempt to deal with a tragic situation, the result of science trying to supplant tradition. In fact, science knows very little about nutrition, it is a young science. But it pretends otherwise, of course, as in so many other areas, like intelligence research.

    The best thing for any American to do is structure a meal plan based on traditional eating habits that lasted till the 70s, which would require some research. Then adjust based on hunger. The key thing is moderation. Too much hunger is as bad as too much satiety.

    Most people regulate their eating through hunger (novel concept).

    I think the main problem is the increased convenience of food consumption. Used to be people simply had 2-3 square meals a day.

    Now there’s constant snacking in between meals as well as substantial consumption of caloric beverages.

    There are keto/LCHF people who get excited about buying or making fun keto food products like KETO FAT BOMBS and eat them as snacks and wonder why they don’t lose weight as the diet promises. Chinese riddle for you…

    LCHF obviously isn’t required to maintain a healthy bodyweight. Just visit Vietnam. Or upper class parts of the West. It just makes it easier and has other benefits (including the psychological and spiritual benefits you describe that come from discipline, taboo, separation, etc.).

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Generally agree with your comment.

    But Japan for instance has greater convenience of food consumption than America. Asia in general does. And while hunger is a vital part of the process in several ways, people also eat for pleasure.

    In terms of weight maintenance, I'm not sure we really know what's going on - the best thing might be to admit that, and take a step back to the last period in time we were thin. Without really understanding what's going on, lets just do what they did. And maybe just do what people in thin countries do. (In terms of eating and food consumption).

    In other words, "decision making under opacity". Step back from the science. It hasn't helped. Stop pretending to understand, and go back to the last point things were still working. Even without knowing why.

    This would require humility, but would it not be wisdom? And yet our society would have such a hard time adopting such an approach. It would work. But we'd never do it.

    As for Keto, that's another ballgame, more experimental, with different potential benefits. There's nothing wrong with these kinds of experiments alongside going back to a basically healthy food culture. No reason not to also experiment.

    Anyways, this is just me harping on what is becoming a theme of mine - I just think as a culture we need a fresh approach to lots of things. The game is now to pretend to know - and we get into all kinds of trouble. Ancel Keys is a good example - dude did.not.know, but had to pretend he did. And how much trouble did his pretense at knowledge cause.
  179. @Thorfinnsson
    Most people regulate their eating through hunger (novel concept).

    I think the main problem is the increased convenience of food consumption. Used to be people simply had 2-3 square meals a day.

    Now there's constant snacking in between meals as well as substantial consumption of caloric beverages.

    There are keto/LCHF people who get excited about buying or making fun keto food products like KETO FAT BOMBS and eat them as snacks and wonder why they don't lose weight as the diet promises. Chinese riddle for you...

    LCHF obviously isn't required to maintain a healthy bodyweight. Just visit Vietnam. Or upper class parts of the West. It just makes it easier and has other benefits (including the psychological and spiritual benefits you describe that come from discipline, taboo, separation, etc.).

    Generally agree with your comment.

    But Japan for instance has greater convenience of food consumption than America. Asia in general does. And while hunger is a vital part of the process in several ways, people also eat for pleasure.

    In terms of weight maintenance, I’m not sure we really know what’s going on – the best thing might be to admit that, and take a step back to the last period in time we were thin. Without really understanding what’s going on, lets just do what they did. And maybe just do what people in thin countries do. (In terms of eating and food consumption).

    In other words, “decision making under opacity”. Step back from the science. It hasn’t helped. Stop pretending to understand, and go back to the last point things were still working. Even without knowing why.

    This would require humility, but would it not be wisdom? And yet our society would have such a hard time adopting such an approach. It would work. But we’d never do it.

    As for Keto, that’s another ballgame, more experimental, with different potential benefits. There’s nothing wrong with these kinds of experiments alongside going back to a basically healthy food culture. No reason not to also experiment.

    Anyways, this is just me harping on what is becoming a theme of mine – I just think as a culture we need a fresh approach to lots of things. The game is now to pretend to know – and we get into all kinds of trouble. Ancel Keys is a good example – dude did.not.know, but had to pretend he did. And how much trouble did his pretense at knowledge cause.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    It's illegal to be fat in Japan. You get fined.

    In non-Japan Asia obesity is climbing as well.

    China, which isn't even rich or fully urbanized yet, for instance has a growing obesity problem now. One-twentieth of Chinese are obese, and the figure is one-fifth in the most prosperous cities.

    https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-beauty/article/1938620/explosion-childhood-obesity-china-worst-ever-expert-says-new

    Modern technology and abundance has produced an obesogenic environment that people struggle to deal with, especially when bombarded with both marketing (of delicious, affordable food products) and all manner of misinformation and quackery.

    The Japanese approach to dealing with the problem is quite elegant. It doesn't require any kind of understanding really--just penalties.
  180. @AaronB
    Generally agree with your comment.

    But Japan for instance has greater convenience of food consumption than America. Asia in general does. And while hunger is a vital part of the process in several ways, people also eat for pleasure.

    In terms of weight maintenance, I'm not sure we really know what's going on - the best thing might be to admit that, and take a step back to the last period in time we were thin. Without really understanding what's going on, lets just do what they did. And maybe just do what people in thin countries do. (In terms of eating and food consumption).

    In other words, "decision making under opacity". Step back from the science. It hasn't helped. Stop pretending to understand, and go back to the last point things were still working. Even without knowing why.

    This would require humility, but would it not be wisdom? And yet our society would have such a hard time adopting such an approach. It would work. But we'd never do it.

    As for Keto, that's another ballgame, more experimental, with different potential benefits. There's nothing wrong with these kinds of experiments alongside going back to a basically healthy food culture. No reason not to also experiment.

    Anyways, this is just me harping on what is becoming a theme of mine - I just think as a culture we need a fresh approach to lots of things. The game is now to pretend to know - and we get into all kinds of trouble. Ancel Keys is a good example - dude did.not.know, but had to pretend he did. And how much trouble did his pretense at knowledge cause.

    It’s illegal to be fat in Japan. You get fined.

    In non-Japan Asia obesity is climbing as well.

    China, which isn’t even rich or fully urbanized yet, for instance has a growing obesity problem now. One-twentieth of Chinese are obese, and the figure is one-fifth in the most prosperous cities.

    https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-beauty/article/1938620/explosion-childhood-obesity-china-worst-ever-expert-says-new

    Modern technology and abundance has produced an obesogenic environment that people struggle to deal with, especially when bombarded with both marketing (of delicious, affordable food products) and all manner of misinformation and quackery.

    The Japanese approach to dealing with the problem is quite elegant. It doesn’t require any kind of understanding really–just penalties.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Maybe, but the fines are not huge, and only in some places, and are a recent thing anyways. I think it's a great idea, and social penalties to fatness are an important part of it all. America also got fatter after social standards broke down in the 60s and general slovenliness was accepted.

    I think a multi-factorial approach is required. Culture, psychology, social pressure, eating healthy, and tradition-proven portion control - adequate and filling but not excessive.

    But such an approach is scientific, not precise - more art than science. Its what a culture is for. But here science has replaced culture and the art of life - so I don't think we are ready yet to think the way the japanese do about food.

    One twentieth obesity is negligible, and one fifth quite low for a wealthy developed nation. But I am sure as China moves away from its traditional attitude to food it will suffer. Remember, China destroyed its traditional culture and today admires America most of all the Asian countries.

    I don't buy the obesogenic environment because I have been most thin and fit in the most obesogenic environments, foodie cities in America, Europe, and Asia. I have only gained weight for short periods in American suburbs, where food is only available in supermarkets you have to drive to, and isn't very good unless you know how to cook.

    There are too many holes in that theory - Tokyo, Paris, Bangkok, Seoul, Rome, Madrid, are a thousand times more obesogenic than an American suburb, yet people are thinner there.

    I am also not sure the European aristocracy did not exist in an obesogenic environment for centuries, yet were notably thin.

    Marketing I agree is a huge problem - I forget his name, Freud's nephew, basically said we needed to manipulate Americans into consuming more as caveat to win the Cold War. His basic method, after all the hype, was just getting high status people to endorse a product or activity lol. Very primitive psychology.

    And the misinformation is a problem too, but can only flourish because we've replaced age old proven traditions with abstract approaches.

    Its complex lol.
    , @utu

    The Japanese approach to dealing with the problem is quite elegant. It doesn’t require any kind of understanding really–just penalties.
     
    Not for individuals but for corporations.
    https://www.jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2016-09-16/story/fact-check-it-illegal-japanese-residents-be-overweight
    , @LondonBob
    KFC is wildly popular and Pizza Hut is seen as an upmarket eating out choice. Fast food just dominates China, and then you have the spoiled only child factor. Not quite at Saudi levels, but obesity is going to be a big issue.
  181. @Thorfinnsson
    It's illegal to be fat in Japan. You get fined.

    In non-Japan Asia obesity is climbing as well.

    China, which isn't even rich or fully urbanized yet, for instance has a growing obesity problem now. One-twentieth of Chinese are obese, and the figure is one-fifth in the most prosperous cities.

    https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-beauty/article/1938620/explosion-childhood-obesity-china-worst-ever-expert-says-new

    Modern technology and abundance has produced an obesogenic environment that people struggle to deal with, especially when bombarded with both marketing (of delicious, affordable food products) and all manner of misinformation and quackery.

    The Japanese approach to dealing with the problem is quite elegant. It doesn't require any kind of understanding really--just penalties.

    Maybe, but the fines are not huge, and only in some places, and are a recent thing anyways. I think it’s a great idea, and social penalties to fatness are an important part of it all. America also got fatter after social standards broke down in the 60s and general slovenliness was accepted.

    I think a multi-factorial approach is required. Culture, psychology, social pressure, eating healthy, and tradition-proven portion control – adequate and filling but not excessive.

    But such an approach is scientific, not precise – more art than science. Its what a culture is for. But here science has replaced culture and the art of life – so I don’t think we are ready yet to think the way the japanese do about food.

    One twentieth obesity is negligible, and one fifth quite low for a wealthy developed nation. But I am sure as China moves away from its traditional attitude to food it will suffer. Remember, China destroyed its traditional culture and today admires America most of all the Asian countries.

    I don’t buy the obesogenic environment because I have been most thin and fit in the most obesogenic environments, foodie cities in America, Europe, and Asia. I have only gained weight for short periods in American suburbs, where food is only available in supermarkets you have to drive to, and isn’t very good unless you know how to cook.

    There are too many holes in that theory – Tokyo, Paris, Bangkok, Seoul, Rome, Madrid, are a thousand times more obesogenic than an American suburb, yet people are thinner there.

    I am also not sure the European aristocracy did not exist in an obesogenic environment for centuries, yet were notably thin.

    Marketing I agree is a huge problem – I forget his name, Freud’s nephew, basically said we needed to manipulate Americans into consuming more as caveat to win the Cold War. His basic method, after all the hype, was just getting high status people to endorse a product or activity lol. Very primitive psychology.

    And the misinformation is a problem too, but can only flourish because we’ve replaced age old proven traditions with abstract approaches.

    Its complex lol.

  182. @Dacian Julien Soros bis
    Is this its only use? I am asking this, because it means we should safely assume that any keto "user" is a bipolar, and a woman, or something else trapped in the brain of a woman.

    No, really, please stop referring to it as if it's anything more than a fad, on a par with paleo (or perhaps they are the same?), or the zodiac. A calorie is a calorie, and a gram of sodium is a gram of sodium. Anything else is secondary for healthy people. For example, a gram of cholesterol is the boogeyman of a long-gone generation of Jewish doctors in cahoots with the US corn industry.

    Also, the body can, and does, alter its pH mainly as a side effect of proper breathing (acidity indicating to the brain you are not breathing). pH is also a side show in regulation of body potassium and body nitrogen. Measuring your pee's pH is going to show only results of regulation of other three things, more important for the body, and quite distinct from each other.

    A calorie is a calorie, and a gram of sodium is a gram of sodium. Anything else is secondary for healthy people

    This should be self-evidently incorrect. If I give you only soda to drink as your only meal, you will have enough calories but rapidly become sickly and eventually die.

    The digestive system is obviously more complex than this. I’ve linked to the biochemistry before, but it’s worth sharing again.

    https://ketoschool.com/the-science-behind-fat-metabolism-60f7a3f678d0

  183. @Thorfinnsson

    Karlin vs. Martyanov. Very entertaining, but off-topic: https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258131
     

    Just read this.

    I think what Martyanov means by "enclosed technological cycles" is the ability to to manufacture final goods without needing to import raw materials, intermediate goods, and capital goods.

    This has the benefit of reducing a state's dependence on foreign trade, but it generally comes at the cost of reduced economic efficiency. Martyanov is a Sovok who dismisses "bourgeois economics" as pseudoscience, so he would either deny the penalty exists or dismiss it as irrelevant.

    He says something interesting in another comment in that thread:


    Any talk about “economy” within framework of modern Western “economism” (a euphemism for FIRE) is a waste of time. There is no real economy without enclosed technological cycles–that’s the name of the game and always was since the start of industrial age. Father of liberalism Herbert Spencer abhorred national industrial self-sustainability as an indicator of militarism. Paradoxically, he was partially correct with this association.
     
    His first sentence is simply Sovokism (and actually beyond that--more on that later), but then he gets to the core of his economic doctrine.

    Martyanov actually has an economic worldview somewhat similar to Adolf Hitler, who considered dependence on trade to be dangerous to the state's self-sufficiency and military power. If a state doesn't have overwhelming military control of its trade routes (which Germany lacked, as does Russia today) that's obviously true.

    Most major powers try to balance this tradeoff by have some level of self-sufficiency for their military-industrial complex, while integrating their civilian-industrial sectors into the world trade system to increase economic efficiency.

    Russia and the United States are relatively unique in having nearly completely self-sufficient military industrial complexes which can produce every class of weapon and munition without substantial foreign input.

    Martyanov being a Sovok, this is the only economy that matters to him. And on a certain crude level, it's correct. Sure, a lot of countries are more prosperous than Russia. But Russia, like Samson, can at any moment pull down the temple thanks to its ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES. So [email protected]#$ those prosperous vassalized Kraut-dummies! Sarmat ICBMs > Mercedes-Benz cars. Russsssssia STRONK!

    The error military-industrial types, especially of the Soviet variety, make is in generalizing this to the rest of the economy. It's certainly true that Embraer doesn't have the capability to produce aircraft without imported components. But compare the sales figures of Embraer to Sukhoi (ignoring, for the moment, that the Superjet is not the product of an enclosed Russian technological cycle) and it's clear that the winner is Embraer.

    Martyanov, like a lot of Western dissidents and foreign anti-Americans, makes the very basic error of thinking the US economy is "fake" (despite containing quite a lot of ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES). You see, banking is not part of the actual economy. Debt is evil (it's in the Bible after all), and the US Dollar is just a worthless scrap of paper. The whole house of cards is going to collapse Real Soon Now...

    Karlin demanded that Martyanov produce a way of quantifying this. It seems to be that the way of doing so would be to apply the economic complexity approach to an economy's output of final manufactured goods and subtract all imports involved in the production of these final goods (raw materials, intermediate goods, capital goods, and intellectual property). To this one would add as well the net trade balance in final manufactured goods.

    One good relic of Sovok in Ukraine is that Ukraine retains some capability of building its own weapons. Here is an interesting article about Ukraine’s own anti-tank missiles in use:

    https://medium.com/dfrlab/minskmonitor-ukraines-anti-tank-missiles-at-the-front-d08a5f3b1e7a

    Larger native missile systems:

    https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-expands-its-missile-capabilities/

  184. @Thorfinnsson
    It's illegal to be fat in Japan. You get fined.

    In non-Japan Asia obesity is climbing as well.

    China, which isn't even rich or fully urbanized yet, for instance has a growing obesity problem now. One-twentieth of Chinese are obese, and the figure is one-fifth in the most prosperous cities.

    https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-beauty/article/1938620/explosion-childhood-obesity-china-worst-ever-expert-says-new

    Modern technology and abundance has produced an obesogenic environment that people struggle to deal with, especially when bombarded with both marketing (of delicious, affordable food products) and all manner of misinformation and quackery.

    The Japanese approach to dealing with the problem is quite elegant. It doesn't require any kind of understanding really--just penalties.

    The Japanese approach to dealing with the problem is quite elegant. It doesn’t require any kind of understanding really–just penalties.

    Not for individuals but for corporations.
    https://www.jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2016-09-16/story/fact-check-it-illegal-japanese-residents-be-overweight

  185. @Thorfinnsson
    It's illegal to be fat in Japan. You get fined.

    In non-Japan Asia obesity is climbing as well.

    China, which isn't even rich or fully urbanized yet, for instance has a growing obesity problem now. One-twentieth of Chinese are obese, and the figure is one-fifth in the most prosperous cities.

    https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-beauty/article/1938620/explosion-childhood-obesity-china-worst-ever-expert-says-new

    Modern technology and abundance has produced an obesogenic environment that people struggle to deal with, especially when bombarded with both marketing (of delicious, affordable food products) and all manner of misinformation and quackery.

    The Japanese approach to dealing with the problem is quite elegant. It doesn't require any kind of understanding really--just penalties.

    KFC is wildly popular and Pizza Hut is seen as an upmarket eating out choice. Fast food just dominates China, and then you have the spoiled only child factor. Not quite at Saudi levels, but obesity is going to be a big issue.

  186. @Thorfinnsson

    Karlin vs. Martyanov. Very entertaining, but off-topic: https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258131
     

    Just read this.

    I think what Martyanov means by "enclosed technological cycles" is the ability to to manufacture final goods without needing to import raw materials, intermediate goods, and capital goods.

    This has the benefit of reducing a state's dependence on foreign trade, but it generally comes at the cost of reduced economic efficiency. Martyanov is a Sovok who dismisses "bourgeois economics" as pseudoscience, so he would either deny the penalty exists or dismiss it as irrelevant.

    He says something interesting in another comment in that thread:


    Any talk about “economy” within framework of modern Western “economism” (a euphemism for FIRE) is a waste of time. There is no real economy without enclosed technological cycles–that’s the name of the game and always was since the start of industrial age. Father of liberalism Herbert Spencer abhorred national industrial self-sustainability as an indicator of militarism. Paradoxically, he was partially correct with this association.
     
    His first sentence is simply Sovokism (and actually beyond that--more on that later), but then he gets to the core of his economic doctrine.

    Martyanov actually has an economic worldview somewhat similar to Adolf Hitler, who considered dependence on trade to be dangerous to the state's self-sufficiency and military power. If a state doesn't have overwhelming military control of its trade routes (which Germany lacked, as does Russia today) that's obviously true.

    Most major powers try to balance this tradeoff by have some level of self-sufficiency for their military-industrial complex, while integrating their civilian-industrial sectors into the world trade system to increase economic efficiency.

    Russia and the United States are relatively unique in having nearly completely self-sufficient military industrial complexes which can produce every class of weapon and munition without substantial foreign input.

    Martyanov being a Sovok, this is the only economy that matters to him. And on a certain crude level, it's correct. Sure, a lot of countries are more prosperous than Russia. But Russia, like Samson, can at any moment pull down the temple thanks to its ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES. So [email protected]#$ those prosperous vassalized Kraut-dummies! Sarmat ICBMs > Mercedes-Benz cars. Russsssssia STRONK!

    The error military-industrial types, especially of the Soviet variety, make is in generalizing this to the rest of the economy. It's certainly true that Embraer doesn't have the capability to produce aircraft without imported components. But compare the sales figures of Embraer to Sukhoi (ignoring, for the moment, that the Superjet is not the product of an enclosed Russian technological cycle) and it's clear that the winner is Embraer.

    Martyanov, like a lot of Western dissidents and foreign anti-Americans, makes the very basic error of thinking the US economy is "fake" (despite containing quite a lot of ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES). You see, banking is not part of the actual economy. Debt is evil (it's in the Bible after all), and the US Dollar is just a worthless scrap of paper. The whole house of cards is going to collapse Real Soon Now...

    Karlin demanded that Martyanov produce a way of quantifying this. It seems to be that the way of doing so would be to apply the economic complexity approach to an economy's output of final manufactured goods and subtract all imports involved in the production of these final goods (raw materials, intermediate goods, capital goods, and intellectual property). To this one would add as well the net trade balance in final manufactured goods.

    The error military-industrial types, especially of the Soviet variety, make is in generalizing this to the rest of the economy. It’s certainly true that Embraer doesn’t have the capability to produce aircraft without imported components. But compare the sales figures of Embraer to Sukhoi (ignoring, for the moment, that the Superjet is not the product of an enclosed Russian technological cycle) and it’s clear that the winner is Embraer.

    That is a bad example, considering how imported components caused issues for the SSJ (the problems of the “French” engines, no orders from Russian MoD and Iran possible).

    It is telling that there is opposition to using engines from the same company for other Russian aircrafts.

  187. @Thorfinnsson

    Karlin vs. Martyanov. Very entertaining, but off-topic: https://www.unz.com/article/vladimir-the-savior/#comment-2258131
     

    Just read this.

    I think what Martyanov means by "enclosed technological cycles" is the ability to to manufacture final goods without needing to import raw materials, intermediate goods, and capital goods.

    This has the benefit of reducing a state's dependence on foreign trade, but it generally comes at the cost of reduced economic efficiency. Martyanov is a Sovok who dismisses "bourgeois economics" as pseudoscience, so he would either deny the penalty exists or dismiss it as irrelevant.

    He says something interesting in another comment in that thread:


    Any talk about “economy” within framework of modern Western “economism” (a euphemism for FIRE) is a waste of time. There is no real economy without enclosed technological cycles–that’s the name of the game and always was since the start of industrial age. Father of liberalism Herbert Spencer abhorred national industrial self-sustainability as an indicator of militarism. Paradoxically, he was partially correct with this association.
     
    His first sentence is simply Sovokism (and actually beyond that--more on that later), but then he gets to the core of his economic doctrine.

    Martyanov actually has an economic worldview somewhat similar to Adolf Hitler, who considered dependence on trade to be dangerous to the state's self-sufficiency and military power. If a state doesn't have overwhelming military control of its trade routes (which Germany lacked, as does Russia today) that's obviously true.

    Most major powers try to balance this tradeoff by have some level of self-sufficiency for their military-industrial complex, while integrating their civilian-industrial sectors into the world trade system to increase economic efficiency.

    Russia and the United States are relatively unique in having nearly completely self-sufficient military industrial complexes which can produce every class of weapon and munition without substantial foreign input.

    Martyanov being a Sovok, this is the only economy that matters to him. And on a certain crude level, it's correct. Sure, a lot of countries are more prosperous than Russia. But Russia, like Samson, can at any moment pull down the temple thanks to its ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES. So [email protected]#$ those prosperous vassalized Kraut-dummies! Sarmat ICBMs > Mercedes-Benz cars. Russsssssia STRONK!

    The error military-industrial types, especially of the Soviet variety, make is in generalizing this to the rest of the economy. It's certainly true that Embraer doesn't have the capability to produce aircraft without imported components. But compare the sales figures of Embraer to Sukhoi (ignoring, for the moment, that the Superjet is not the product of an enclosed Russian technological cycle) and it's clear that the winner is Embraer.

    Martyanov, like a lot of Western dissidents and foreign anti-Americans, makes the very basic error of thinking the US economy is "fake" (despite containing quite a lot of ENCLOSED TECHNOLOGICAL CYCLES). You see, banking is not part of the actual economy. Debt is evil (it's in the Bible after all), and the US Dollar is just a worthless scrap of paper. The whole house of cards is going to collapse Real Soon Now...

    Karlin demanded that Martyanov produce a way of quantifying this. It seems to be that the way of doing so would be to apply the economic complexity approach to an economy's output of final manufactured goods and subtract all imports involved in the production of these final goods (raw materials, intermediate goods, capital goods, and intellectual property). To this one would add as well the net trade balance in final manufactured goods.

    It is rather funny my rather middle of the way initial comment – which is obviously true, Russia does have a very substantial manufacturing sector (contra that Akuleyev fellow), but it is not internationally competitive (as Martyanov claims, apparently confusing his “enclosed technological cycles” for that) – provoked such an infuriated response. I don’t even recall making any particular value judgments there, though my default position is that autarky is better to the extent it doesn’t put a major crimp on efficiency and makes one less vulnerable to sanctions (obviously a germane issue in Russia’s case, and in China’s). Ah yes, and there was also that hilarity with the distinction between industrial vs. manufacturing production.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Yes, Admiral Martyanov doubling down on a very basic error was quite amusing.

    His educuckery is also highly amusing. You're not allowed to have a discussion with him until you fax him evidence of your graduate degree from the Upper Petropavlovsk Naval Institute of Military-Technical Radioelectronic Physics or something.

    He should've been a doctor since his entire style of argument consists of questioning the credentials of his opponent.

    Then there's some sort of boomer-millennial hostility at work as well.
  188. @notanon

    none of the aforementioned thinkers explicitly made Wrangham’s jump to individually harmless people indulging in proactively aggressive homicide on dangerous individuals as having been the cause of domestication.
     
    fair enough - i expect "torches and pitchforks" was one method, getting together to find a suitable volunteer sheriff to do the deed would be another (a common trope in westerns) and imo the main one: a gang of dangerous individuals making themselves the ruling elite and getting rid of rival dangerous individuals.

    interesting now i think of it - westerns being so resonant because the "wild west" was ancient history repeated (the formation of complex societies from scratch).

    Yes in Westerns the cowardly townspeople and corrupt sheriff being terrorised by the local big shot are a common trope. And now instead of Westerns there are police dramas in which the renegade cop who plays by his own rules is a thinly disguised vigilante. These storylines obviously satisfy something in the primordial mind. I think it could work if imposed from above by an elite as with:

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491501300114
    Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress. The decline in personal violence is usually attributed to harsher punishment and the longer-term effects of cultural conditioning. It may also be, however, that this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence.

    However, where Wrangham’s theory gets novel is when he says it was the most peaceful and cooperative people, the ones without any kind of elite, such as the Bushmen (who are also the most primitive of course) that were coming together to publicly kill a dangerous individual. I have read that the relatively large female bonobos will bite off a finger from rowdy males (while among chimps by contrast the barrel chested dominant male and his minions in many cases take females by force).

    It is also perhaps not coincidental that in schizophrenia the dread of a conspiracy against one is a prominent symptom, as is anhedonia.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    The theory is very doubtful.

    Lots of places had high rates of death penalties, and the most aggressive men regularly died in war in large numbers.

    Japanese peasants were remarkably docile and pacific, but the moment they were unleashed in war, proved rather dramatically that aggression had hardly been bred out of them. Similarly, if war comes to Japan again, only a fool or an HBDer would assume the past 7 decades of pacific docility means the Japanese are now incapable of aggression.

    Similarly among the Jews, who for literally centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression, suddenly discovered that aggression hasn't quite been bred out of them the moment circumstances permitted.

    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid - and so won't yield an intelligent analysis. Implicit in your line of reasoning is a linear, 1 to 1 relationship between genes and behavior. Gene x codes for behavior y. Simple and linear, like a computer program. This is how a child might reason, or an HBDer, or someone too heavily into STEM.

    Let me give you an example of an intelligent line of inquiry, ok? The relationship between a human trait and the expression of that human trait in the physical environment is completely non linear and incredibly complex. So gene x may code for "aggression" - but this will only express itself if conditions are very favourable. Or - and this is really mind twisting for you - gene x may code simply for the capacity for aggression - which may have to be activated by a catalyst. Or - more mind twisting - aggression may express itself in a variety of forms,
    now murderous violence, now usurious practices that ruin society, now competitive hard work to secure prestige.

    In other words there are no genes for murderous violence and other genes for usurious practices and other genes for extend competitive hard work - there is just aggression, which changes shape according to conditions.

    Even more insanely mind twisting, there may be no gene for aggression at all - but only a gene for strategy. And what you call aggression in one context, is merely intelligent strategy in that context, and can be taken up or discontinued at will.

    But do not be too dismayed at this frightening complex world this reveals - simply retreat to the comforting and simple linear world which you live in, like most HBDers. Any day now scientists will discover the polygenic score for aggression. Yes, it will happen soon.
    , @notanon

    However, where Wrangham’s theory gets novel is when he says it was the most peaceful and cooperative people, the ones without any kind of elite, such as the Bushmen (who are also the most primitive of course) that were coming together to publicly kill a dangerous individual.
     
    makes sense

    no (or very little) surplus e.g. Bushmen = no elite so would require the torches and pitchforks model.
  189. @notanon

    target what the majority of your ancestors were eating in about 1492 AD
     
    or even more recently than that - thinking about this some more my grand-parent's diet in modern "macro" terms would be:

    moderate carbs, moderate protein, moderate fat

    and the anti-fat campaign turned that into:

    high carbs, moderate protein, low fat

    so in a way all paleo and keto do is push you back towards what was the standard diet (for northern euros) less than a century ago and after a year or so of doing that and then slacking off a bit you'll pretty much be back with your grand-parent's diet again (with less bread and much less sugar).

    My father did not eat certain foods growing up that I would miss, like pizza. They just weren’t typical American foods and hadn’t really crossed beyond the ethnic line.

    My mother didn’t always have meat. When she did, it was often things like liver or tongue. She came from a big family in a relatively poor country. When they had eggs, some would not get an egg. The luckier ones would get a part of it – the top of the egg.

    I think it would be hard to give up the idea of a supermarket. We eat better than the kings of old, so I think that is why the idea of a macro diet has an appeal. I’m not sure how well my American grandparents ate. I figure they probably had a lot less fruit in winter – I think that would be tough.

    The idea that the diet of older generations killed them earlier might very well be fallacious. Many vaccines did not exist, and if you were exposed to something that killed a sibling, that might have taken a few years off the end of your life.

    • Replies: @notanon
    yeah what i meant was my grand-parents ate what people from their background had been eating for centuries so it went back a long way (so it was recent but also very old).
  190. @Anatoly Karlin
    It is rather funny my rather middle of the way initial comment - which is obviously true, Russia does have a very substantial manufacturing sector (contra that Akuleyev fellow), but it is not internationally competitive (as Martyanov claims, apparently confusing his "enclosed technological cycles" for that) - provoked such an infuriated response. I don't even recall making any particular value judgments there, though my default position is that autarky is better to the extent it doesn't put a major crimp on efficiency and makes one less vulnerable to sanctions (obviously a germane issue in Russia's case, and in China's). Ah yes, and there was also that hilarity with the distinction between industrial vs. manufacturing production.

    Yes, Admiral Martyanov doubling down on a very basic error was quite amusing.

    His educuckery is also highly amusing. You’re not allowed to have a discussion with him until you fax him evidence of your graduate degree from the Upper Petropavlovsk Naval Institute of Military-Technical Radioelectronic Physics or something.

    He should’ve been a doctor since his entire style of argument consists of questioning the credentials of his opponent.

    Then there’s some sort of boomer-millennial hostility at work as well.

    • Replies: @AP
    A particularly funny thing about him is that his credentials are so very mediocre (his profile is on linkedin). He went to a second-tier military school, never got to a high rank, and soon afterward came to the USA where he worked a a math tutor for kids working on getting into college, and graphic designer (the kind of work Soviet grandpas with technical backgrounds do if they immigrate).
    , @Dmitry
    I didn't read a lot of Admiral Martyanov's comments, but I thought he was interesting when he came to the forum, to the extent he was writing about what he actually knows from real life - life in USSR and Russian literature.

    In general, old people commenting on the internet, have a potential to be a lot more interesting than young people, when they only talk about topics they know personally and from their real experience.

    A problem for their internet comments, is that crazy oldtimers, seemed to become even more crazy, often into an angry way which is not enjoyable to read. Also, it seems in the Sailor forum, a lot of internet whining and negativity, like village women (although I'm not exactly sure "testosterone therapy" for old people, would make them become more friendly on the internet).

    That said, it's not like young people are so interesting to read on the internet. On average, it is far more interesting to read comments of people with more experience of years, and more qualifications.

  191. @Sean
    Yes in Westerns the cowardly townspeople and corrupt sheriff being terrorised by the local big shot are a common trope. And now instead of Westerns there are police dramas in which the renegade cop who plays by his own rules is a thinly disguised vigilante. These storylines obviously satisfy something in the primordial mind. I think it could work if imposed from above by an elite as with:

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491501300114
    Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress. The decline in personal violence is usually attributed to harsher punishment and the longer-term effects of cultural conditioning. It may also be, however, that this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence.
     
    However, where Wrangham's theory gets novel is when he says it was the most peaceful and cooperative people, the ones without any kind of elite, such as the Bushmen (who are also the most primitive of course) that were coming together to publicly kill a dangerous individual. I have read that the relatively large female bonobos will bite off a finger from rowdy males (while among chimps by contrast the barrel chested dominant male and his minions in many cases take females by force).

    It is also perhaps not coincidental that in schizophrenia the dread of a conspiracy against one is a prominent symptom, as is anhedonia.

    The theory is very doubtful.

    Lots of places had high rates of death penalties, and the most aggressive men regularly died in war in large numbers.

    Japanese peasants were remarkably docile and pacific, but the moment they were unleashed in war, proved rather dramatically that aggression had hardly been bred out of them. Similarly, if war comes to Japan again, only a fool or an HBDer would assume the past 7 decades of pacific docility means the Japanese are now incapable of aggression.

    Similarly among the Jews, who for literally centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression, suddenly discovered that aggression hasn’t quite been bred out of them the moment circumstances permitted.

    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid – and so won’t yield an intelligent analysis. Implicit in your line of reasoning is a linear, 1 to 1 relationship between genes and behavior. Gene x codes for behavior y. Simple and linear, like a computer program. This is how a child might reason, or an HBDer, or someone too heavily into STEM.

    Let me give you an example of an intelligent line of inquiry, ok? The relationship between a human trait and the expression of that human trait in the physical environment is completely non linear and incredibly complex. So gene x may code for “aggression” – but this will only express itself if conditions are very favourable. Or – and this is really mind twisting for you – gene x may code simply for the capacity for aggression – which may have to be activated by a catalyst. Or – more mind twisting – aggression may express itself in a variety of forms,
    now murderous violence, now usurious practices that ruin society, now competitive hard work to secure prestige.

    In other words there are no genes for murderous violence and other genes for usurious practices and other genes for extend competitive hard work – there is just aggression, which changes shape according to conditions.

    Even more insanely mind twisting, there may be no gene for aggression at all – but only a gene for strategy. And what you call aggression in one context, is merely intelligent strategy in that context, and can be taken up or discontinued at will.

    But do not be too dismayed at this frightening complex world this reveals – simply retreat to the comforting and simple linear world which you live in, like most HBDers. Any day now scientists will discover the polygenic score for aggression. Yes, it will happen soon.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The genes help code the brain, which significantly influences behavior.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/21/mind-control-bull-fight-delgado/#.XL8dutpKg2w

    The investigator, dressed incongruously in sweater and tie and holding a small metal box, stands in a bullring. He taunts a bull with a gesture of his hand. Suddenly the bull faces him and charges. Taking a couple of steps back, the investigator presses a button on the box to send a radio signal, and the bull halts in mid-stride. It turns away. The animal’s natural aggression has evaporated.

     

    Though the article doesn't mention it directly, he also repeatedly triggered anger and irrational aggression in cats. In Heath's experiments with deep brain stimulation, he was able to quite significantly influence human behavior.

    The awareness of the ability of electric or chemical influence on the brain and behavior would necessarily and logically lead to genetic influence on the brain, often using similar mechanisms of chemical control(e.g. hormone release mediated by genetic influences). E.g. differences in dopamine reuptake would lead to different personalities.
    , @Hyperborean
    You sometimes exhibit an inability to escape from a certain provincialism, which harms your analysis of foreign subjects - but I find this a good comment, generally.
    , @Peter Frost
    Japanese peasants were remarkably docile and pacific, but the moment they were unleashed in war, proved rather dramatically that aggression had hardly been bred out of them.

    It's important to distinguish between two kinds of violence: personal violence, which is done for personal motives and on one's own initiative, and violence done "under orders" with the backing of "authority." The mental state is very different in the two cases.

    You've probably heard of the Milgram experiment. Assistants are told to give a ‘subject’ progressively stronger electric shocks whenever he or she fails on a learning task. Most of the assistants—the real subjects of the experiment—obediently do as they are told, even when the pseudo-subject is visibly in pain and pleads for cessation of the shocks. (In reality, the pseudo-subject is a trained actor and no shocks are actually given). When Stanley Milgram began this research at Yale in the early 1960s, he found that 65% of his subjects kept on administering electric shocks right up to the top end of the scale. That's the Japanese propensity for violence.

    Let me give you an example of an intelligent line of inquiry, ok? The relationship between a human trait and the expression of that human trait in the physical environment is completely non linear and incredibly complex.

    Uh, could you please demonstrate the "intelligence" of the above by providing references? There is a large literature on the heritability of propensities for personal violence. The following is from the latest review of the literature:


    Data from twin and family studies show that antisocial behavioral generally, and violence specifically, is moderately heritable. Genetic factors appear to account for 40–60% of the population-level variance in broad-band antisocial phenotypes[79], and heritability is considerably higher (>80%) for subtypes encompassing both antisocial behavior and callous-unemotional traits[80,81]. A number of risk-associated genetic variants have been identified[82], but considerable attention has been focused on one specific polymorphism in the MAOA gene (encoding the enzyme monoamine oxidase A). MAOA first came to prominence in series of family-based studies of severely violent men, who were found to possess a mutation that blocked production of this enzyme[83,84]. Complimentary work subsequently demonstrated that genetic deletion or hypoexpression of maoa markedly increased impulsive and aggressive behavior in mice[85–87].


     

    https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc5794654
    , @utu
    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid – and so won’t yield an intelligent analysis.

    There is something very sticky and very dark about that Sean character. He likes to insinuate and plant seemingly inescapable dark solutions not only in the theory of evolution framework like in this case which was rather easy because of the ex definition tautological nature of ToE. OTOH your assumption that "Jews [...] for [...] centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression"comes from Jewish PR and survival strategy of a minority that often it could not afford going on a rampage and kill all the people they dreamed of killing. This PR was internalized by Jews themselves and then repeated in the stories about themselves ad infinitum. One look at organized Jewish crime in 19 century Warsaw and Odessa should disabuse anybody from the belief in Jewish docility and non aggression. In Warsaw there were battles between Jewish gangs (see Alfonse Pogrom) like those depicted in Gangs of New York and this aggressiveness could not be bread out as Sean would impute as Russia had no death penalty for such crimes. And as far as Japanese peasants, I do not think that you or anybody here knows enough about Japanese peasants and their docility/aggression factor even if such a factor could be defined to make any statements about them. So your arguments is wrong in particular sense but I believe it is correct in general sense, i.e, the environment beats the genes. The dig Hyperborean tried to take with a veil of praise is missing a point. Then our Mowgli comes with an example that was likely to appear in a mind of somebody raised by machines. Finally comes the onanists Peter Frost with his ToE masturbations.
    , @Sean

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?
    “When you select against aggression, you get some surprising traits that come along with it,” Wrangham says. “My suspicion is that the easiest way for natural selection to reduce aggressiveness is to favor those individuals whose brains develop relatively slowly in relation to their bodies.” When fully grown, such an animal does not display as much aggression because it has a more juvenile brain, which tends to be less aggressive than that of an adult. “This is a very easy target for natural selection,” Wrangham argues, because it probably does not depend on numerous mutations but rather on the tweaking of one or two regulatory genes that determine the timing of a whole cascade of developmental events. For that reason, he says, “it happens consistently.” The result, he believes, is an adult possessing a suite of juvenile characteristics, including a very different temperament.
     
    Soldiers are most certainly not an example of what Wrangham calls reactive aggression, which he is careful to distinguish from proactive aggression (if you had watched Wrangham's presentation) you would know elimination of the latter and strengthening former is what we are talking about. Japanese gangsters are mainly Burakumin. The Kamikaze pilots were disproportionately from the Japanese elite.

    So gene x may code for “aggression” – but this will only express itself if conditions are very favourable
     
    As part of a lynch mob or army. I'm sorry, this is very like a one to one gene to trait correspondence you were just telling me does not exist. Anyway proactive 'obeying orders' aggression, which is socially authorised, is compatible with being a brave and effective soldier in an army or a member of a lynch mob. Indeed it might almost be said that the less individually wayward peoples are better at fighting in an organised group.Yonatan Netanyahu was the son of a professor, but also an aggressive soldier. Ehud Barak is not the most intimidating Jewish man in the world.

    But do not be too dismayed at this frightening complex world this reveals – simply retreat to the comforting and simple linear world which you live in, like most HBDers. Any day now scientists will discover the polygenic score for aggression. Yes, it will happen soon
     
    You are are also retreating to your own little worldview. It is what one would expect even if everyone started off similarly minded, because a bifurcation into two schools of thought is natural. There is no misunderstanding to be cleared up because it is not a problem with a solution, but rather a conflict with an outcome.

    https://youtu.be/2Vmq69tNvP8?t=2589

    , @notanon
    will be more complicated but

    a) genes for aggression
    b) genes for restraint

    four cases

    1) aggression, no restraint (criminal)
    2) aggression + restraint (cop, soldier)
    3) no aggression, no restraint
    4) no aggression + restraint

    so the culling model doesn't simply select against aggression it selects against the combination of aggression and lack of restraint.

    Japanese would appear to fit that model particularly well.
  192. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Yes, Admiral Martyanov doubling down on a very basic error was quite amusing.

    His educuckery is also highly amusing. You're not allowed to have a discussion with him until you fax him evidence of your graduate degree from the Upper Petropavlovsk Naval Institute of Military-Technical Radioelectronic Physics or something.

    He should've been a doctor since his entire style of argument consists of questioning the credentials of his opponent.

    Then there's some sort of boomer-millennial hostility at work as well.

    A particularly funny thing about him is that his credentials are so very mediocre (his profile is on linkedin). He went to a second-tier military school, never got to a high rank, and soon afterward came to the USA where he worked a a math tutor for kids working on getting into college, and graphic designer (the kind of work Soviet grandpas with technical backgrounds do if they immigrate).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    His credentials aren't bad, but yes his tiresome credentialism would perhaps be less tiresome if he'd graduated from a first-rank academy and become a flag officer. I have zero idea how officer careerism worked in the Soviet Union, but if it's anything like America then perhaps leaving the service as a lower-ranked officer could be respectable if one left because he was unwilling to participate in a dishonest system. Retired American officers like John T. Reed, David Hackworth (RIP), Carleton Meyer, etc. come to mind.

    Anti-American Russian nationalism is also annoying from people who...live in America (which also includes The Faker).

    It's particularly amusing that lots of anti-American Russian nationalists who currently live in America are doomerists regarding the US economy. Obviously they live in America because the material standard of living is higher here. Yet they believe that this standard of living will in the future, perhaps even in the very near future, completely collapse.

    That they choose to remain in America is fundamentally irrational and even personally dangerous according to their own sincerely held beliefs. Not even just materially dangerous, but dangerous to one's own basic personal security. Foreign nationalists with a long record of trash talking America are unlikely to very popular in a post-collapse USA.

    The entire phenomenon is bizarre, though we dissidents of right have all learned that beliefs are rarely rational.

  193. @AaronB
    The theory is very doubtful.

    Lots of places had high rates of death penalties, and the most aggressive men regularly died in war in large numbers.

    Japanese peasants were remarkably docile and pacific, but the moment they were unleashed in war, proved rather dramatically that aggression had hardly been bred out of them. Similarly, if war comes to Japan again, only a fool or an HBDer would assume the past 7 decades of pacific docility means the Japanese are now incapable of aggression.

    Similarly among the Jews, who for literally centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression, suddenly discovered that aggression hasn't quite been bred out of them the moment circumstances permitted.

    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid - and so won't yield an intelligent analysis. Implicit in your line of reasoning is a linear, 1 to 1 relationship between genes and behavior. Gene x codes for behavior y. Simple and linear, like a computer program. This is how a child might reason, or an HBDer, or someone too heavily into STEM.

    Let me give you an example of an intelligent line of inquiry, ok? The relationship between a human trait and the expression of that human trait in the physical environment is completely non linear and incredibly complex. So gene x may code for "aggression" - but this will only express itself if conditions are very favourable. Or - and this is really mind twisting for you - gene x may code simply for the capacity for aggression - which may have to be activated by a catalyst. Or - more mind twisting - aggression may express itself in a variety of forms,
    now murderous violence, now usurious practices that ruin society, now competitive hard work to secure prestige.

    In other words there are no genes for murderous violence and other genes for usurious practices and other genes for extend competitive hard work - there is just aggression, which changes shape according to conditions.

    Even more insanely mind twisting, there may be no gene for aggression at all - but only a gene for strategy. And what you call aggression in one context, is merely intelligent strategy in that context, and can be taken up or discontinued at will.

    But do not be too dismayed at this frightening complex world this reveals - simply retreat to the comforting and simple linear world which you live in, like most HBDers. Any day now scientists will discover the polygenic score for aggression. Yes, it will happen soon.

    The genes help code the brain, which significantly influences behavior.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/21/mind-control-bull-fight-delgado/#.XL8dutpKg2w

    The investigator, dressed incongruously in sweater and tie and holding a small metal box, stands in a bullring. He taunts a bull with a gesture of his hand. Suddenly the bull faces him and charges. Taking a couple of steps back, the investigator presses a button on the box to send a radio signal, and the bull halts in mid-stride. It turns away. The animal’s natural aggression has evaporated.

    Though the article doesn’t mention it directly, he also repeatedly triggered anger and irrational aggression in cats. In Heath’s experiments with deep brain stimulation, he was able to quite significantly influence human behavior.

    The awareness of the ability of electric or chemical influence on the brain and behavior would necessarily and logically lead to genetic influence on the brain, often using similar mechanisms of chemical control(e.g. hormone release mediated by genetic influences). E.g. differences in dopamine reuptake would lead to different personalities.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Listen, Mowgli, That experiment could mean simply that the bull was confused and distracted by the radio signal, or experienced it as an unpleasant, disorienting sensation, so it stopped charging. Not that its anger specifically was manipulated.

    Why are you people so simple minded? Why can you think things thorough realistically?

    The fact that physical structures and chemistry can impact behavior does not tell us whether a particular behavior in a specific situation is mediated by the environment or not.

    Yes, we can engineer certain highly abnormal conditions where behavior may have no obvious link to environment. And yes, pathological individuals may exhibit such behavior.

    Yes, all traits are affected by the physical substratum. No one here is denying that genes play a role in all human traits and behaviors.

    The theory we are discussing says aggression in humans is not linked to environment but is an invariant trait, and men who possess this trait must die off before a society can develop.

    But the evidence we have suggests that aggression is not an invariant trait in normal people under conditions encountered in the world, but highly linked to environment. A brief survey of human history amply bears this out. And moreover, the evidence indicates no human trait is entirely genetic.

    So again we have an extreme overreaction of the genetics people and a diagnosis that is astoundingly ignorant of history (this is fast becoming the signature trait of the genetics people), as well as a style of analysis that cannot process complexity.
  194. @AaronB
    The theory is very doubtful.

    Lots of places had high rates of death penalties, and the most aggressive men regularly died in war in large numbers.

    Japanese peasants were remarkably docile and pacific, but the moment they were unleashed in war, proved rather dramatically that aggression had hardly been bred out of them. Similarly, if war comes to Japan again, only a fool or an HBDer would assume the past 7 decades of pacific docility means the Japanese are now incapable of aggression.

    Similarly among the Jews, who for literally centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression, suddenly discovered that aggression hasn't quite been bred out of them the moment circumstances permitted.

    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid - and so won't yield an intelligent analysis. Implicit in your line of reasoning is a linear, 1 to 1 relationship between genes and behavior. Gene x codes for behavior y. Simple and linear, like a computer program. This is how a child might reason, or an HBDer, or someone too heavily into STEM.

    Let me give you an example of an intelligent line of inquiry, ok? The relationship between a human trait and the expression of that human trait in the physical environment is completely non linear and incredibly complex. So gene x may code for "aggression" - but this will only express itself if conditions are very favourable. Or - and this is really mind twisting for you - gene x may code simply for the capacity for aggression - which may have to be activated by a catalyst. Or - more mind twisting - aggression may express itself in a variety of forms,
    now murderous violence, now usurious practices that ruin society, now competitive hard work to secure prestige.

    In other words there are no genes for murderous violence and other genes for usurious practices and other genes for extend competitive hard work - there is just aggression, which changes shape according to conditions.

    Even more insanely mind twisting, there may be no gene for aggression at all - but only a gene for strategy. And what you call aggression in one context, is merely intelligent strategy in that context, and can be taken up or discontinued at will.

    But do not be too dismayed at this frightening complex world this reveals - simply retreat to the comforting and simple linear world which you live in, like most HBDers. Any day now scientists will discover the polygenic score for aggression. Yes, it will happen soon.

    You sometimes exhibit an inability to escape from a certain provincialism, which harms your analysis of foreign subjects – but I find this a good comment, generally.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Good. It is time to put aside childish things and wise up.
  195. Looks like there will be another delay in the US commercial crew program, as the Dragon capsule blew up, during a test firing of its thrusters.

  196. @AaronB
    The theory is very doubtful.

    Lots of places had high rates of death penalties, and the most aggressive men regularly died in war in large numbers.

    Japanese peasants were remarkably docile and pacific, but the moment they were unleashed in war, proved rather dramatically that aggression had hardly been bred out of them. Similarly, if war comes to Japan again, only a fool or an HBDer would assume the past 7 decades of pacific docility means the Japanese are now incapable of aggression.

    Similarly among the Jews, who for literally centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression, suddenly discovered that aggression hasn't quite been bred out of them the moment circumstances permitted.

    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid - and so won't yield an intelligent analysis. Implicit in your line of reasoning is a linear, 1 to 1 relationship between genes and behavior. Gene x codes for behavior y. Simple and linear, like a computer program. This is how a child might reason, or an HBDer, or someone too heavily into STEM.

    Let me give you an example of an intelligent line of inquiry, ok? The relationship between a human trait and the expression of that human trait in the physical environment is completely non linear and incredibly complex. So gene x may code for "aggression" - but this will only express itself if conditions are very favourable. Or - and this is really mind twisting for you - gene x may code simply for the capacity for aggression - which may have to be activated by a catalyst. Or - more mind twisting - aggression may express itself in a variety of forms,
    now murderous violence, now usurious practices that ruin society, now competitive hard work to secure prestige.

    In other words there are no genes for murderous violence and other genes for usurious practices and other genes for extend competitive hard work - there is just aggression, which changes shape according to conditions.

    Even more insanely mind twisting, there may be no gene for aggression at all - but only a gene for strategy. And what you call aggression in one context, is merely intelligent strategy in that context, and can be taken up or discontinued at will.

    But do not be too dismayed at this frightening complex world this reveals - simply retreat to the comforting and simple linear world which you live in, like most HBDers. Any day now scientists will discover the polygenic score for aggression. Yes, it will happen soon.

    Japanese peasants were remarkably docile and pacific, but the moment they were unleashed in war, proved rather dramatically that aggression had hardly been bred out of them.

    It’s important to distinguish between two kinds of violence: personal violence, which is done for personal motives and on one’s own initiative, and violence done “under orders” with the backing of “authority.” The mental state is very different in the two cases.

    You’ve probably heard of the Milgram experiment. Assistants are told to give a ‘subject’ progressively stronger electric shocks whenever he or she fails on a learning task. Most of the assistants—the real subjects of the experiment—obediently do as they are told, even when the pseudo-subject is visibly in pain and pleads for cessation of the shocks. (In reality, the pseudo-subject is a trained actor and no shocks are actually given). When Stanley Milgram began this research at Yale in the early 1960s, he found that 65% of his subjects kept on administering electric shocks right up to the top end of the scale. That’s the Japanese propensity for violence.

    Let me give you an example of an intelligent line of inquiry, ok? The relationship between a human trait and the expression of that human trait in the physical environment is completely non linear and incredibly complex.

    Uh, could you please demonstrate the “intelligence” of the above by providing references? There is a large literature on the heritability of propensities for personal violence. The following is from the latest review of the literature:

    Data from twin and family studies show that antisocial behavioral generally, and violence specifically, is moderately heritable. Genetic factors appear to account for 40–60% of the population-level variance in broad-band antisocial phenotypes[79], and heritability is considerably higher (>80%) for subtypes encompassing both antisocial behavior and callous-unemotional traits[80,81]. A number of risk-associated genetic variants have been identified[82], but considerable attention has been focused on one specific polymorphism in the MAOA gene (encoding the enzyme monoamine oxidase A). MAOA first came to prominence in series of family-based studies of severely violent men, who were found to possess a mutation that blocked production of this enzyme[83,84]. Complimentary work subsequently demonstrated that genetic deletion or hypoexpression of maoa markedly increased impulsive and aggressive behavior in mice[85–87].

    https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc5794654

  197. @AP
    A particularly funny thing about him is that his credentials are so very mediocre (his profile is on linkedin). He went to a second-tier military school, never got to a high rank, and soon afterward came to the USA where he worked a a math tutor for kids working on getting into college, and graphic designer (the kind of work Soviet grandpas with technical backgrounds do if they immigrate).

    His credentials aren’t bad, but yes his tiresome credentialism would perhaps be less tiresome if he’d graduated from a first-rank academy and become a flag officer. I have zero idea how officer careerism worked in the Soviet Union, but if it’s anything like America then perhaps leaving the service as a lower-ranked officer could be respectable if one left because he was unwilling to participate in a dishonest system. Retired American officers like John T. Reed, David Hackworth (RIP), Carleton Meyer, etc. come to mind.

    Anti-American Russian nationalism is also annoying from people who…live in America (which also includes The Faker).

    It’s particularly amusing that lots of anti-American Russian nationalists who currently live in America are doomerists regarding the US economy. Obviously they live in America because the material standard of living is higher here. Yet they believe that this standard of living will in the future, perhaps even in the very near future, completely collapse.

    That they choose to remain in America is fundamentally irrational and even personally dangerous according to their own sincerely held beliefs. Not even just materially dangerous, but dangerous to one’s own basic personal security. Foreign nationalists with a long record of trash talking America are unlikely to very popular in a post-collapse USA.

    The entire phenomenon is bizarre, though we dissidents of right have all learned that beliefs are rarely rational.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    In fairness, one such character (not Martyanov, not the Saker, but still fairly prominent) has moved back to Russia within the past year or so. I am not sure it's public information, so I won't specify which one.

    But yes, the phenomenon is pretty amusing.
    , @Yevardian
    Many upcoming officers in the USSR left the army regardless of promotion prospects during the 1990's because they weren't even being paid.

    A lot of that resentment comes from people who were only able to emigrate to the US and not another state such as Germany, during that period because of relatives. They might have settled there but nonetheless see their futures having been stolen from them because the USSR's collapse.

  198. @Thorfinnsson
    His credentials aren't bad, but yes his tiresome credentialism would perhaps be less tiresome if he'd graduated from a first-rank academy and become a flag officer. I have zero idea how officer careerism worked in the Soviet Union, but if it's anything like America then perhaps leaving the service as a lower-ranked officer could be respectable if one left because he was unwilling to participate in a dishonest system. Retired American officers like John T. Reed, David Hackworth (RIP), Carleton Meyer, etc. come to mind.

    Anti-American Russian nationalism is also annoying from people who...live in America (which also includes The Faker).

    It's particularly amusing that lots of anti-American Russian nationalists who currently live in America are doomerists regarding the US economy. Obviously they live in America because the material standard of living is higher here. Yet they believe that this standard of living will in the future, perhaps even in the very near future, completely collapse.

    That they choose to remain in America is fundamentally irrational and even personally dangerous according to their own sincerely held beliefs. Not even just materially dangerous, but dangerous to one's own basic personal security. Foreign nationalists with a long record of trash talking America are unlikely to very popular in a post-collapse USA.

    The entire phenomenon is bizarre, though we dissidents of right have all learned that beliefs are rarely rational.

    In fairness, one such character (not Martyanov, not the Saker, but still fairly prominent) has moved back to Russia within the past year or so. I am not sure it’s public information, so I won’t specify which one.

    But yes, the phenomenon is pretty amusing.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    According to the search engine, Saker is a Swiss blogger (pensioner?) who lives in America.

    I guess he writes so much about the topic of Russia-America conflict (as well as his other topics like Israel/Palestine), because he has nostalgia for reading newspapers during the Cold War, and dreams of it to be always in at least cold war for him.

    If you have tried to "read" (well, skimming) any of his articles, you can see he has no experience of this country, which shows lack of interest in a real country designated by the word "Russia".

    Anyway, people are not usually immigrating from Switzerland to Russia, so it's not fair to criticize him for this. He probably has built a nuclear bunker in a neutral country, to save him from a nuclear apocalypse he dreams of arriving, and so hopes to be unburnt to welcome whatever is predicted for him by Islamic eschatology.

    , @Yevardian
    Dmitri Orlov? Though I think he released that information publicly, iirc.
  199. @AaronB
    The theory is very doubtful.

    Lots of places had high rates of death penalties, and the most aggressive men regularly died in war in large numbers.

    Japanese peasants were remarkably docile and pacific, but the moment they were unleashed in war, proved rather dramatically that aggression had hardly been bred out of them. Similarly, if war comes to Japan again, only a fool or an HBDer would assume the past 7 decades of pacific docility means the Japanese are now incapable of aggression.

    Similarly among the Jews, who for literally centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression, suddenly discovered that aggression hasn't quite been bred out of them the moment circumstances permitted.

    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid - and so won't yield an intelligent analysis. Implicit in your line of reasoning is a linear, 1 to 1 relationship between genes and behavior. Gene x codes for behavior y. Simple and linear, like a computer program. This is how a child might reason, or an HBDer, or someone too heavily into STEM.

    Let me give you an example of an intelligent line of inquiry, ok? The relationship between a human trait and the expression of that human trait in the physical environment is completely non linear and incredibly complex. So gene x may code for "aggression" - but this will only express itself if conditions are very favourable. Or - and this is really mind twisting for you - gene x may code simply for the capacity for aggression - which may have to be activated by a catalyst. Or - more mind twisting - aggression may express itself in a variety of forms,
    now murderous violence, now usurious practices that ruin society, now competitive hard work to secure prestige.

    In other words there are no genes for murderous violence and other genes for usurious practices and other genes for extend competitive hard work - there is just aggression, which changes shape according to conditions.

    Even more insanely mind twisting, there may be no gene for aggression at all - but only a gene for strategy. And what you call aggression in one context, is merely intelligent strategy in that context, and can be taken up or discontinued at will.

    But do not be too dismayed at this frightening complex world this reveals - simply retreat to the comforting and simple linear world which you live in, like most HBDers. Any day now scientists will discover the polygenic score for aggression. Yes, it will happen soon.

    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid – and so won’t yield an intelligent analysis.

    There is something very sticky and very dark about that Sean character. He likes to insinuate and plant seemingly inescapable dark solutions not only in the theory of evolution framework like in this case which was rather easy because of the ex definition tautological nature of ToE. OTOH your assumption that “Jews […] for […] centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression”comes from Jewish PR and survival strategy of a minority that often it could not afford going on a rampage and kill all the people they dreamed of killing. This PR was internalized by Jews themselves and then repeated in the stories about themselves ad infinitum. One look at organized Jewish crime in 19 century Warsaw and Odessa should disabuse anybody from the belief in Jewish docility and non aggression. In Warsaw there were battles between Jewish gangs (see Alfonse Pogrom) like those depicted in Gangs of New York and this aggressiveness could not be bread out as Sean would impute as Russia had no death penalty for such crimes. And as far as Japanese peasants, I do not think that you or anybody here knows enough about Japanese peasants and their docility/aggression factor even if such a factor could be defined to make any statements about them. So your arguments is wrong in particular sense but I believe it is correct in general sense, i.e, the environment beats the genes. The dig Hyperborean tried to take with a veil of praise is missing a point. Then our Mowgli comes with an example that was likely to appear in a mind of somebody raised by machines. Finally comes the onanists Peter Frost with his ToE masturbations.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    The dig Hyperborean tried to take with a veil of praise is missing a point.
     
    What point am I missing? I mainly agree with your statement here:

    So your arguments is wrong in particular sense but I believe it is correct in general sense, i.e, the environment beats the genes.
     
    , @songbird
    There was also a Jewish mob in America.

    Blank slatism cannot explain why there was a gracialization of skulls that preceded sendantism - which itself interestingly preceded agriculture. The only rational explanation for this gracialization is selective pressures and genetics. Some people believe it was trade that was the important impetus.

    Whatever the case, it is obvious that genes can influence behavior, and this includes propensity to violence, such as has been demonstrated by our Russian friends through the experiment with silver foxes.

    It is very doubtful that selection against aggression stopped in the far distant past. Mathematically, the case is obvious that it continued, at least in certain environments. Whatever amount this must account for, it is unlikely to be anything to sneeze at.

    Does it account for the whole explanation of why violence declined? Obviously not, but I don't believe Sean, Mr. Frost, or even JayMan has made that case. Pinker's explanation that things always just get better (though he claims he is not saying that) is really the crazy explanation.

    What is also left unsaid is the fact that genes can change the culture. Take out some of the violent psychopaths, and the normies might be willing to back down more because they would be less afraid to show weakness. They might not carry weapons with them everywhere they go, which itself would result in a decline.

    , @AaronB
    Agree with you about the Sean character.

    There is something "icky" about this attempt to define white people as docile and pacified, and sell them this image of themselves as scientific fact, an identity they cannot question.

    Considering Sean's other preoccupations, it's not surprising he is on board with this.

    And it also isn't surprising that this is emerging out of the HBD movement - people need to seriously consider the kinds if mythmaking that is coming out of this movement and what's behind it.
  200. @utu
    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid – and so won’t yield an intelligent analysis.

    There is something very sticky and very dark about that Sean character. He likes to insinuate and plant seemingly inescapable dark solutions not only in the theory of evolution framework like in this case which was rather easy because of the ex definition tautological nature of ToE. OTOH your assumption that "Jews [...] for [...] centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression"comes from Jewish PR and survival strategy of a minority that often it could not afford going on a rampage and kill all the people they dreamed of killing. This PR was internalized by Jews themselves and then repeated in the stories about themselves ad infinitum. One look at organized Jewish crime in 19 century Warsaw and Odessa should disabuse anybody from the belief in Jewish docility and non aggression. In Warsaw there were battles between Jewish gangs (see Alfonse Pogrom) like those depicted in Gangs of New York and this aggressiveness could not be bread out as Sean would impute as Russia had no death penalty for such crimes. And as far as Japanese peasants, I do not think that you or anybody here knows enough about Japanese peasants and their docility/aggression factor even if such a factor could be defined to make any statements about them. So your arguments is wrong in particular sense but I believe it is correct in general sense, i.e, the environment beats the genes. The dig Hyperborean tried to take with a veil of praise is missing a point. Then our Mowgli comes with an example that was likely to appear in a mind of somebody raised by machines. Finally comes the onanists Peter Frost with his ToE masturbations.

    The dig Hyperborean tried to take with a veil of praise is missing a point.

    What point am I missing? I mainly agree with your statement here:

    So your arguments is wrong in particular sense but I believe it is correct in general sense, i.e, the environment beats the genes.

  201. @utu
    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid – and so won’t yield an intelligent analysis.

    There is something very sticky and very dark about that Sean character. He likes to insinuate and plant seemingly inescapable dark solutions not only in the theory of evolution framework like in this case which was rather easy because of the ex definition tautological nature of ToE. OTOH your assumption that "Jews [...] for [...] centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression"comes from Jewish PR and survival strategy of a minority that often it could not afford going on a rampage and kill all the people they dreamed of killing. This PR was internalized by Jews themselves and then repeated in the stories about themselves ad infinitum. One look at organized Jewish crime in 19 century Warsaw and Odessa should disabuse anybody from the belief in Jewish docility and non aggression. In Warsaw there were battles between Jewish gangs (see Alfonse Pogrom) like those depicted in Gangs of New York and this aggressiveness could not be bread out as Sean would impute as Russia had no death penalty for such crimes. And as far as Japanese peasants, I do not think that you or anybody here knows enough about Japanese peasants and their docility/aggression factor even if such a factor could be defined to make any statements about them. So your arguments is wrong in particular sense but I believe it is correct in general sense, i.e, the environment beats the genes. The dig Hyperborean tried to take with a veil of praise is missing a point. Then our Mowgli comes with an example that was likely to appear in a mind of somebody raised by machines. Finally comes the onanists Peter Frost with his ToE masturbations.

    There was also a Jewish mob in America.

    Blank slatism cannot explain why there was a gracialization of skulls that preceded sendantism – which itself interestingly preceded agriculture. The only rational explanation for this gracialization is selective pressures and genetics. Some people believe it was trade that was the important impetus.

    Whatever the case, it is obvious that genes can influence behavior, and this includes propensity to violence, such as has been demonstrated by our Russian friends through the experiment with silver foxes.

    It is very doubtful that selection against aggression stopped in the far distant past. Mathematically, the case is obvious that it continued, at least in certain environments. Whatever amount this must account for, it is unlikely to be anything to sneeze at.

    Does it account for the whole explanation of why violence declined? Obviously not, but I don’t believe Sean, Mr. Frost, or even JayMan has made that case. Pinker’s explanation that things always just get better (though he claims he is not saying that) is really the crazy explanation.

    What is also left unsaid is the fact that genes can change the culture. Take out some of the violent psychopaths, and the normies might be willing to back down more because they would be less afraid to show weakness. They might not carry weapons with them everywhere they go, which itself would result in a decline.

    • Replies: @utu
    The complexity of the problem is so great that it is intractable. But people insist on having explanations. The explanations are just-so stories that are more compelling if they go along with ideological biases people hold. The meta story of the ToE is a very powerful ideology that can weave infinite number of stories. The stories, i.e., explanations, however, can't be really verified or tested which makes them to be just-so stories. For example how would you verify your story about taking out some psychopaths and observing the development of milder less aggressive customs in society? Your story seems to be very reasonable particularly to liberals but it is not reasonable to NRA official story which may forward the evidence that actually the immediate threat of violence promotes kinder behaviors using prisons as an example where people are very careful and cautious of not stepping on anybody's toes or offending anybody. Some people may try to explain that American superficial and then deeply internalized custom of friendliness as opposed to some Europeans stems from the threat of strangers and the fear of escalation of minor arguments or infractions into a deadly confrontation.
  202. @AaronB
    The theory is very doubtful.

    Lots of places had high rates of death penalties, and the most aggressive men regularly died in war in large numbers.

    Japanese peasants were remarkably docile and pacific, but the moment they were unleashed in war, proved rather dramatically that aggression had hardly been bred out of them. Similarly, if war comes to Japan again, only a fool or an HBDer would assume the past 7 decades of pacific docility means the Japanese are now incapable of aggression.

    Similarly among the Jews, who for literally centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression, suddenly discovered that aggression hasn't quite been bred out of them the moment circumstances permitted.

    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid - and so won't yield an intelligent analysis. Implicit in your line of reasoning is a linear, 1 to 1 relationship between genes and behavior. Gene x codes for behavior y. Simple and linear, like a computer program. This is how a child might reason, or an HBDer, or someone too heavily into STEM.

    Let me give you an example of an intelligent line of inquiry, ok? The relationship between a human trait and the expression of that human trait in the physical environment is completely non linear and incredibly complex. So gene x may code for "aggression" - but this will only express itself if conditions are very favourable. Or - and this is really mind twisting for you - gene x may code simply for the capacity for aggression - which may have to be activated by a catalyst. Or - more mind twisting - aggression may express itself in a variety of forms,
    now murderous violence, now usurious practices that ruin society, now competitive hard work to secure prestige.

    In other words there are no genes for murderous violence and other genes for usurious practices and other genes for extend competitive hard work - there is just aggression, which changes shape according to conditions.

    Even more insanely mind twisting, there may be no gene for aggression at all - but only a gene for strategy. And what you call aggression in one context, is merely intelligent strategy in that context, and can be taken up or discontinued at will.

    But do not be too dismayed at this frightening complex world this reveals - simply retreat to the comforting and simple linear world which you live in, like most HBDers. Any day now scientists will discover the polygenic score for aggression. Yes, it will happen soon.

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?
    “When you select against aggression, you get some surprising traits that come along with it,” Wrangham says. “My suspicion is that the easiest way for natural selection to reduce aggressiveness is to favor those individuals whose brains develop relatively slowly in relation to their bodies.” When fully grown, such an animal does not display as much aggression because it has a more juvenile brain, which tends to be less aggressive than that of an adult. “This is a very easy target for natural selection,” Wrangham argues, because it probably does not depend on numerous mutations but rather on the tweaking of one or two regulatory genes that determine the timing of a whole cascade of developmental events. For that reason, he says, “it happens consistently.” The result, he believes, is an adult possessing a suite of juvenile characteristics, including a very different temperament.

    Soldiers are most certainly not an example of what Wrangham calls reactive aggression, which he is careful to distinguish from proactive aggression (if you had watched Wrangham’s presentation) you would know elimination of the latter and strengthening former is what we are talking about. Japanese gangsters are mainly Burakumin. The Kamikaze pilots were disproportionately from the Japanese elite.

    So gene x may code for “aggression” – but this will only express itself if conditions are very favourable

    As part of a lynch mob or army. I’m sorry, this is very like a one to one gene to trait correspondence you were just telling me does not exist. Anyway proactive ‘obeying orders’ aggression, which is socially authorised, is compatible with being a brave and effective soldier in an army or a member of a lynch mob. Indeed it might almost be said that the less individually wayward peoples are better at fighting in an organised group.Yonatan Netanyahu was the son of a professor, but also an aggressive soldier. Ehud Barak is not the most intimidating Jewish man in the world.

    But do not be too dismayed at this frightening complex world this reveals – simply retreat to the comforting and simple linear world which you live in, like most HBDers. Any day now scientists will discover the polygenic score for aggression. Yes, it will happen soon

    You are are also retreating to your own little worldview. It is what one would expect even if everyone started off similarly minded, because a bifurcation into two schools of thought is natural. There is no misunderstanding to be cleared up because it is not a problem with a solution, but rather a conflict with an outcome.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    What you call reactive and proactive violence are merely differences in the level of organization and planning involved.

    There is no intrinsic difference between reactive aggression or proactive aggression . Aggression is a tool biological organisms may use to secure their survival at the expense of other biological organisms. That's all it is.

    The only difference between the criminal and the soldier is that one uses violence on his own behalf (and typically a small group of confederations) and the other on behalf of the whole community.

    But a thug mugging little old ladies in the street for small change is literally no different than a Japanese soldier invading Manchuria so that all of Japan can benefit. Not only that, but the behavior of Japanese soldiers in Nanking and Russian soldiers in a defeated Germany isn't even optically different from your imaginary genetically aggressive man.

    Now, it is extremely obvious that every civilized society discourages physical violence between its members and channels that aggression into economic competition and physical violence against outsiders. In fact a big reason physical aggression is discouraged is because it disrupts the smooth functioning of this competitive economic system. Lower forms of aggression are suppressed in favor of higher ones.

    It is extremely obvious that the behavior of our businessmen, lawyers, and executives is an exact analogue of the "reactive" thug on the street. The businessmen have merely agreed on a more productive arena for their aggression.

    So a community that has abandoned physical violence between its members - what you call reactive violence - has not changed its character, but merely adopted a different form of violence - typically economic. Such a community may return to physical violence the moment conditions so dictate.

    And historically we see this is the case.

    Now, unplanned spontaneous violence - reactive violence - may under certain social and economic conditions be the best strategy for securing one's life and property. And in these conditions, adaptive behavior will develop spontaneously.

    Hunan beings are highly adaptive - why else exactly did we evolve these big brains? - and personality is highly responsive to conditions.

    When I was young I lived in a place where the kids were physically violent and aggressive, constantly fighting. So I was like that too. I moved to another community that wasn't like that, and I suddenly became docile and well behaved - at least outwardly. Of course, this new community merely channeled aggression into other sanctioned forms.

    No, I did not "die out" and was not replaced by another genetically different Aaron, as your theory would have it.

    Then there's the matter of your ridiculous history - during the years when all the genetically aggressive men should have been removed from European society, European men were fighting duels for imagined slights - no different than young black thugs today. In highly civilized German universities in the 19th century, the cognitive elite would savagely go at each other with swords, and a proper young man was supposed to have a scarred face, all the while science and technology and philosophy were being developed higher than ever before. And of course, Europeans were colonizing most of the world and fighting savagely again each other.

    But since all the genetically aggressive men had to be eliminated before the golden age of industry and science could commence, and our own era of economic piracy, then it has to be a completely different thing.

    Next we will start distinguishing between violence using a fist or a foot, a knife or a hammer, and find a gene for each lol.
  203. @Sean
    Yes in Westerns the cowardly townspeople and corrupt sheriff being terrorised by the local big shot are a common trope. And now instead of Westerns there are police dramas in which the renegade cop who plays by his own rules is a thinly disguised vigilante. These storylines obviously satisfy something in the primordial mind. I think it could work if imposed from above by an elite as with:

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491501300114
    Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress. The decline in personal violence is usually attributed to harsher punishment and the longer-term effects of cultural conditioning. It may also be, however, that this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence.
     
    However, where Wrangham's theory gets novel is when he says it was the most peaceful and cooperative people, the ones without any kind of elite, such as the Bushmen (who are also the most primitive of course) that were coming together to publicly kill a dangerous individual. I have read that the relatively large female bonobos will bite off a finger from rowdy males (while among chimps by contrast the barrel chested dominant male and his minions in many cases take females by force).

    It is also perhaps not coincidental that in schizophrenia the dread of a conspiracy against one is a prominent symptom, as is anhedonia.

    However, where Wrangham’s theory gets novel is when he says it was the most peaceful and cooperative people, the ones without any kind of elite, such as the Bushmen (who are also the most primitive of course) that were coming together to publicly kill a dangerous individual.

    makes sense

    no (or very little) surplus e.g. Bushmen = no elite so would require the torches and pitchforks model.

  204. @songbird
    My father did not eat certain foods growing up that I would miss, like pizza. They just weren't typical American foods and hadn't really crossed beyond the ethnic line.

    My mother didn't always have meat. When she did, it was often things like liver or tongue. She came from a big family in a relatively poor country. When they had eggs, some would not get an egg. The luckier ones would get a part of it - the top of the egg.

    I think it would be hard to give up the idea of a supermarket. We eat better than the kings of old, so I think that is why the idea of a macro diet has an appeal. I'm not sure how well my American grandparents ate. I figure they probably had a lot less fruit in winter - I think that would be tough.

    The idea that the diet of older generations killed them earlier might very well be fallacious. Many vaccines did not exist, and if you were exposed to something that killed a sibling, that might have taken a few years off the end of your life.

    yeah what i meant was my grand-parents ate what people from their background had been eating for centuries so it went back a long way (so it was recent but also very old).

  205. @AaronB
    The theory is very doubtful.

    Lots of places had high rates of death penalties, and the most aggressive men regularly died in war in large numbers.

    Japanese peasants were remarkably docile and pacific, but the moment they were unleashed in war, proved rather dramatically that aggression had hardly been bred out of them. Similarly, if war comes to Japan again, only a fool or an HBDer would assume the past 7 decades of pacific docility means the Japanese are now incapable of aggression.

    Similarly among the Jews, who for literally centuries were synonymous with docility and non aggression, suddenly discovered that aggression hasn't quite been bred out of them the moment circumstances permitted.

    The problem with your line of inquiries is that it is stupid - and so won't yield an intelligent analysis. Implicit in your line of reasoning is a linear, 1 to 1 relationship between genes and behavior. Gene x codes for behavior y. Simple and linear, like a computer program. This is how a child might reason, or an HBDer, or someone too heavily into STEM.

    Let me give you an example of an intelligent line of inquiry, ok? The relationship between a human trait and the expression of that human trait in the physical environment is completely non linear and incredibly complex. So gene x may code for "aggression" - but this will only express itself if conditions are very favourable. Or - and this is really mind twisting for you - gene x may code simply for the capacity for aggression - which may have to be activated by a catalyst. Or - more mind twisting - aggression may express itself in a variety of forms,
    now murderous violence, now usurious practices that ruin society, now competitive hard work to secure prestige.

    In other words there are no genes for murderous violence and other genes for usurious practices and other genes for extend competitive hard work - there is just aggression, which changes shape according to conditions.

    Even more insanely mind twisting, there may be no gene for aggression at all - but only a gene for strategy. And what you call aggression in one context, is merely intelligent strategy in that context, and can be taken up or discontinued at will.

    But do not be too dismayed at this frightening complex world this reveals - simply retreat to the comforting and simple linear world which you live in, like most HBDers. Any day now scientists will discover the polygenic score for aggression. Yes, it will happen soon.

    will be more complicated but

    a) genes for aggression
    b) genes for restraint

    four cases

    1) aggression, no restraint (criminal)
    2) aggression + restraint (cop, soldier)
    3) no aggression, no restraint
    4) no aggression + restraint

    so the culling model doesn’t simply select against aggression it selects against the combination of aggression and lack of restraint.

    Japanese would appear to fit that model particularly well.

  206. @songbird
    There was also a Jewish mob in America.

    Blank slatism cannot explain why there was a gracialization of skulls that preceded sendantism - which itself interestingly preceded agriculture. The only rational explanation for this gracialization is selective pressures and genetics. Some people believe it was trade that was the important impetus.

    Whatever the case, it is obvious that genes can influence behavior, and this includes propensity to violence, such as has been demonstrated by our Russian friends through the experiment with silver foxes.

    It is very doubtful that selection against aggression stopped in the far distant past. Mathematically, the case is obvious that it continued, at least in certain environments. Whatever amount this must account for, it is unlikely to be anything to sneeze at.

    Does it account for the whole explanation of why violence declined? Obviously not, but I don't believe Sean, Mr. Frost, or even JayMan has made that case. Pinker's explanation that things always just get better (though he claims he is not saying that) is really the crazy explanation.

    What is also left unsaid is the fact that genes can change the culture. Take out some of the violent psychopaths, and the normies might be willing to back down more because they would be less afraid to show weakness. They might not carry weapons with them everywhere they go, which itself would result in a decline.

    The complexity of the problem is so great that it is intractable. But people insist on having explanations. The explanations are just-so stories that are more compelling if they go along with ideological biases people hold. The meta story of the ToE is a very powerful ideology that can weave infinite number of stories. The stories, i.e., explanations, however, can’t be really verified or tested which makes them to be just-so stories. For example how would you verify your story about taking out some psychopaths and observing the development of milder less aggressive customs in society? Your story seems to be very reasonable particularly to liberals but it is not reasonable to NRA official story which may forward the evidence that actually the immediate threat of violence promotes kinder behaviors using prisons as an example where people are very careful and cautious of not stepping on anybody’s toes or offending anybody. Some people may try to explain that American superficial and then deeply internalized custom of friendliness as opposed to some Europeans stems from the threat of strangers and the fear of escalation of minor arguments or infractions into a deadly confrontation.

    • Replies: @ussr andy

    For example how would you verify your story about taking out some psychopaths and observing the development of milder less aggressive customs in society?
     
    it (or something very similar) has been observed (and I'd be surprised if it hadn't been modelled game-theoretically before that)


    there was a baboon troupe that took fancy to a trash heap left by holiday makers or something. every day, baboons would go there and fight over trash. the nastiest baboons won but they also succumbed to tbc, which in monkeys is acute instead of chronic.
    with a fraction of a percent of the nastiest baboons taken out, the conditions in the troupe softened radically, there was a lot more cooperation, grooming etc.

    I think it's in Robert Sapolsky's interview with Joe Rogan and I prolly messed up a few details. YouTube it

  207. The latest intentionally perverse idea:

    Should Non-Citizens be Represented in Congress?

    It’s almost literally an oxymoron. Isn’t to be represented in the political process the most quintessential quality of citizenship? If one is ‘represented,’ one is, in at least a sense, a citizen.

    …It’s also oppressively reminiscent of the Roman Empire, which made citizenship universal — immediately before beginning the Third Century collapse.

  208. @Thorfinnsson
    Yes, Admiral Martyanov doubling down on a very basic error was quite amusing.

    His educuckery is also highly amusing. You're not allowed to have a discussion with him until you fax him evidence of your graduate degree from the Upper Petropavlovsk Naval Institute of Military-Technical Radioelectronic Physics or something.

    He should've been a doctor since his entire style of argument consists of questioning the credentials of his opponent.

    Then there's some sort of boomer-millennial hostility at work as well.

    I didn’t read a lot of Admiral Martyanov’s comments, but I thought he was interesting when he came to the forum, to the extent he was writing about what he actually knows from real life – life in USSR and Russian literature.

    In general, old people commenting on the internet, have a potential to be a lot more interesting than young people, when they only talk about topics they know personally and from their real experience.

    A problem for their internet comments, is that crazy oldtimers, seemed to become even more crazy, often into an angry way which is not enjoyable to read. Also, it seems in the Sailor forum, a lot of internet whining and negativity, like village women (although I’m not exactly sure “testosterone therapy” for old people, would make them become more friendly on the internet).

    That said, it’s not like young people are so interesting to read on the internet. On average, it is far more interesting to read comments of people with more experience of years, and more qualifications.

    • Agree: Yevardian
  209. @Anatoly Karlin
    In fairness, one such character (not Martyanov, not the Saker, but still fairly prominent) has moved back to Russia within the past year or so. I am not sure it's public information, so I won't specify which one.

    But yes, the phenomenon is pretty amusing.

    According to the search engine, Saker is a Swiss blogger (pensioner?) who lives in America.

    I guess he writes so much about the topic of Russia-America conflict (as well as his other topics like Israel/Palestine), because he has nostalgia for reading newspapers during the Cold War, and dreams of it to be always in at least cold war for him.

    If you have tried to “read” (well, skimming) any of his articles, you can see he has no experience of this country, which shows lack of interest in a real country designated by the word “Russia”.

    Anyway, people are not usually immigrating from Switzerland to Russia, so it’s not fair to criticize him for this. He probably has built a nuclear bunker in a neutral country, to save him from a nuclear apocalypse he dreams of arriving, and so hopes to be unburnt to welcome whatever is predicted for him by Islamic eschatology.

  210. anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:

    Anyway, people are not usually immigrating from Switzerland to Russia

    He is, IIRC, third or fourth generation descendant of White emigres, as Russian as Irish Americans from Boston are Irish and Polish Americans from Chicago are Polish.

  211. @Thorfinnsson
    His credentials aren't bad, but yes his tiresome credentialism would perhaps be less tiresome if he'd graduated from a first-rank academy and become a flag officer. I have zero idea how officer careerism worked in the Soviet Union, but if it's anything like America then perhaps leaving the service as a lower-ranked officer could be respectable if one left because he was unwilling to participate in a dishonest system. Retired American officers like John T. Reed, David Hackworth (RIP), Carleton Meyer, etc. come to mind.

    Anti-American Russian nationalism is also annoying from people who...live in America (which also includes The Faker).

    It's particularly amusing that lots of anti-American Russian nationalists who currently live in America are doomerists regarding the US economy. Obviously they live in America because the material standard of living is higher here. Yet they believe that this standard of living will in the future, perhaps even in the very near future, completely collapse.

    That they choose to remain in America is fundamentally irrational and even personally dangerous according to their own sincerely held beliefs. Not even just materially dangerous, but dangerous to one's own basic personal security. Foreign nationalists with a long record of trash talking America are unlikely to very popular in a post-collapse USA.

    The entire phenomenon is bizarre, though we dissidents of right have all learned that beliefs are rarely rational.

    Many upcoming officers in the USSR left the army regardless of promotion prospects during the 1990’s because they weren’t even being paid.

    A lot of that resentment comes from people who were only able to emigrate to the US and not another state such as Germany, during that period because of relatives. They might have settled there but nonetheless see their futures having been stolen from them because the USSR’s collapse.

  212. @Anatoly Karlin
    In fairness, one such character (not Martyanov, not the Saker, but still fairly prominent) has moved back to Russia within the past year or so. I am not sure it's public information, so I won't specify which one.

    But yes, the phenomenon is pretty amusing.

    Dmitri Orlov? Though I think he released that information publicly, iirc.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Correct.

    Just googled up this: http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2018/05/moving-to-russia.html
  213. @utu
    The complexity of the problem is so great that it is intractable. But people insist on having explanations. The explanations are just-so stories that are more compelling if they go along with ideological biases people hold. The meta story of the ToE is a very powerful ideology that can weave infinite number of stories. The stories, i.e., explanations, however, can't be really verified or tested which makes them to be just-so stories. For example how would you verify your story about taking out some psychopaths and observing the development of milder less aggressive customs in society? Your story seems to be very reasonable particularly to liberals but it is not reasonable to NRA official story which may forward the evidence that actually the immediate threat of violence promotes kinder behaviors using prisons as an example where people are very careful and cautious of not stepping on anybody's toes or offending anybody. Some people may try to explain that American superficial and then deeply internalized custom of friendliness as opposed to some Europeans stems from the threat of strangers and the fear of escalation of minor arguments or infractions into a deadly confrontation.

    For example how would you verify your story about taking out some psychopaths and observing the development of milder less aggressive customs in society?

    it (or something very similar) has been observed (and I’d be surprised if it hadn’t been modelled game-theoretically before that)

    there was a baboon troupe that took fancy to a trash heap left by holiday makers or something. every day, baboons would go there and fight over trash. the nastiest baboons won but they also succumbed to tbc, which in monkeys is acute instead of chronic.
    with a fraction of a percent of the nastiest baboons taken out, the conditions in the troupe softened radically, there was a lot more cooperation, grooming etc.

    I think it’s in Robert Sapolsky’s interview with Joe Rogan and I prolly messed up a few details. YouTube it

    • Replies: @ussr andy
    oh, and I think he said it persisted for a time after none of the original baboons were there
  214. @ussr andy

    For example how would you verify your story about taking out some psychopaths and observing the development of milder less aggressive customs in society?
     
    it (or something very similar) has been observed (and I'd be surprised if it hadn't been modelled game-theoretically before that)


    there was a baboon troupe that took fancy to a trash heap left by holiday makers or something. every day, baboons would go there and fight over trash. the nastiest baboons won but they also succumbed to tbc, which in monkeys is acute instead of chronic.
    with a fraction of a percent of the nastiest baboons taken out, the conditions in the troupe softened radically, there was a lot more cooperation, grooming etc.

    I think it's in Robert Sapolsky's interview with Joe Rogan and I prolly messed up a few details. YouTube it

    oh, and I think he said it persisted for a time after none of the original baboons were there

    • Replies: @utu
    I remember reading the story about the trash, TB and baboons turning into affectionate and caring... It is possible but it still just a story. One should be very careful with the stories told by primatologists or anthropologists.
  215. Britain approves Huawei’s 5G, neocon heads explode.

    • Replies: @Curious Person

    neocon heads explode
     
    5g will make everyone's head explode
    , @notanon
    not just neocons - the ongoing betrayal of UK to China/India was a deal struck by the London banking mafia in exchange for full access to the Chinese/Indian financial sectors.

    (which in the long term is a death sentence for China and India)
    , @Philip Owen
    Cisco isn't really up to it yet but we need 5G now to gain advantage. There needs to be competition to Nokia (even though they use British IP). One assumes that GCHQ and Qinetiq Malvern who are the world's leading electronic spooks in technology terms have reviewed the dangers/opportunities at length and will continue to do so.

    Cisco had it to lose. They lost it. The US Government is trying to rescue them.

    In the real world the UK will be installing Nokia but we need the Chinese to be nice to us because ... Brexit.

  216. @LondonBob
    Britain approves Huawei's 5G, neocon heads explode.

    neocon heads explode

    5g will make everyone’s head explode

  217. @Thorfinnsson
    The Tu-160 is a strategic bomber. Its mission is to launch long-range supersonic nuclear armed cruise missiles from standoff range.

    Russia has also used it in the conventional bombing role in Syria.

    It's not equipped or trained for an anti-shipping mission, but I bet they're considering that. The Su-34 after all is.

    The Russians are also reportedly developing a replacement called the PAK-DA. This is supposed to be a supersonic stealth bomber.

    The Tu-160 is capable of carrying the Kh-101 missile, which is to say, attacking airports from which the F-35 could operate. I’m not sure if it can carry anti-ship missiles, but I’m pretty sure it’d be easy to do so. I remember reading that the Kinzhal was tested with the Tu-22M3 bomber. It might not be the best for the Tu-160 (it requires the plane to reach its top speed right before launch, probably it’s a better fit with the MiG-31), but I’d think that if the Tu-22M3 could do that, the Tu-160 should be able to, too.

  218. @Thorfinnsson
    So you're saying Russian defense procurement is driven by the same political pressures as defense procurement in all other countries?

    Being American I can tick off a massive list of cartoonish procurement failures. The Army hasn't produced a good infantry rifle since the 1930s. Our new aircraft carrier can't even launch or recover aircraft.

    Even during WW2 there were procurement fiascos in nearly all belligerent countries. Heinkel for instance was upset about being forced to produce Ju-88 wings and slow walked production until the RLM allowed them to instead produce the unreliable He-177. The US Navy equipped its submarines with dysfunctional torpedoes and punished officers who complained. Japan had bizarre rivalry between its navy and air force (except, oddly, on radar development) who refused to use each other's weapons. The USSR had the then useless MiG bureau turning out unsuitable fighters.

    Britain actually comes out looking good here as I can't really think of any British wartime procurement debacles (but perhaps our British commenters can).

    Russia is so much weaker than the US that I don’t think it can afford massive failures like not having adequate air superiority fighters. Though of course they could maintain their bomber fleet without new production or even major modernization for a long time, I’d think it’s more important than even having a heavy bomber force. Of course they don’t need to choose anyway.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    They cannot maintain their bomber fleet without new production/major modernization for a long time.

    Air frames age, accidents happen basically every year.
    In the past, they could rely on their Soviet legacy, but that is not an option in the long-run.