[News] Post a Political News Story

Ongoing discussion of the political news of the day. This thread is for 'smaller' stories that don't call for their own thread. If a story blows up, please start a new thread for it.

Out of left field, I wonder if they want to throw as many fighter programs into the pipeline as they can before someone decides that UAVs (and long range missile buses if you want to get really wacky) are the real future of air combat.

I'd ask why they're going to need a new airframe so often though. Are we really making such rapid advances in aerodynamics or stealth design to make that necessary? Seems better to build a solid aircraft and put effort into avionics.

The irony of the Air Force wanting hundreds of billions of dollars of new spending for high tech aircraft when Iran just shut down Saudi Arabia's oil production with cheap fiberglass drones that were first made in the 80s.

bnpederson wrote:
Kehama wrote:

So new fighters every 5 years and the winning design gets a 3 year contract for 24 planes per year. They point out how designing and churning out jets with this kind of turnaround time was done in the 50's. Okay, sure, and I'm sure modern fighter aircraft are no more complicated than ones from the 1950's so I'm sure more testing and refinement time won't be needed than would have been 70 years ago. Ugh.

Anyway, taking this quote out of context makes me feel like this is the United State's motto now:

"How do you deal with a threat if you don’t know what the future technology is? Be the threat – always have a new airplane coming out."

The article also points out how even in the 50s you didn't actually have fighter jets being turned around in 5 years, as most of them were based on designs from 10 years previous that had seen real flight time.

I laughed aloud at the mention of Agile solutions to freaking fighter jets though. That stuff barely works for my enterprise software applications, I cannot imagine the Air Force getting their act together enough to make it work for building physical things.

And they want to lower maintenance costs by having multiple series of small fighters? I gotta tell that one to my mechanical engineering friends, they'll probably go between incredulous laughter and cringing at how much work that's going to be.

ALIS says, 'Hello.'

Reaper81 wrote:
bnpederson wrote:
Kehama wrote:

So new fighters every 5 years and the winning design gets a 3 year contract for 24 planes per year. They point out how designing and churning out jets with this kind of turnaround time was done in the 50's. Okay, sure, and I'm sure modern fighter aircraft are no more complicated than ones from the 1950's so I'm sure more testing and refinement time won't be needed than would have been 70 years ago. Ugh.

Anyway, taking this quote out of context makes me feel like this is the United State's motto now:

"How do you deal with a threat if you don’t know what the future technology is? Be the threat – always have a new airplane coming out."

The article also points out how even in the 50s you didn't actually have fighter jets being turned around in 5 years, as most of them were based on designs from 10 years previous that had seen real flight time.

I laughed aloud at the mention of Agile solutions to freaking fighter jets though. That stuff barely works for my enterprise software applications, I cannot imagine the Air Force getting their act together enough to make it work for building physical things.

And they want to lower maintenance costs by having multiple series of small fighters? I gotta tell that one to my mechanical engineering friends, they'll probably go between incredulous laughter and cringing at how much work that's going to be.

ALIS says, 'Hello.'

Oh. We're moving our top secret weapons development projects to the cloud. I'm sure nothing bad could possibly result from this.

bnpederson wrote:

The article also points out how even in the 50s you didn't actually have fighter jets being turned around in 5 years, as most of them were based on designs from 10 years previous that had seen real flight time.

I laughed aloud at the mention of Agile solutions to freaking fighter jets though. That stuff barely works for my enterprise software applications, I cannot imagine the Air Force getting their act together enough to make it work for building physical things.

And they want to lower maintenance costs by having multiple series of small fighters? I gotta tell that one to my mechanical engineering friends, they'll probably go between incredulous laughter and cringing at how much work that's going to be.

First things first, they're going to have to rebuild, from the ground up, the process by which the FAA certifies airplanes. Agile software development only goes so far when there's a 6-9 month flow time to field any given software release.

At the end of the day, underneath the raw stupidity of this idea is a real problem - protracted development schedules. But of course, underneath that problem is a whole host of other problems, some bureaucratic, others technical. On the technical side, if you want a fighter developed in 5 years, you can totally have that, but the capabilities of that fighter will suck. The bottom line is that highly integrated and tightly coupled systems-of-systems are hard to build, and if you want a modern aircraft to be competitive with the enemy, you need that level of integrated systems.

qaraq wrote:

I'd ask why they're going to need a new airframe so often though. Are we really making such rapid advances in aerodynamics or stealth design to make that necessary? Seems better to build a solid aircraft and put effort into avionics.

The justification I have seen is that they are trying to expand the current industrial base beyond the current 3 U.S. contractors. By opening up the procurement to many smaller programs instead of one gigantic one every 20 years, they're hoping to encourage new companies to compete with designs? That seems like wishful thinking.

Boudreaux wrote:
qaraq wrote:

I'd ask why they're going to need a new airframe so often though. Are we really making such rapid advances in aerodynamics or stealth design to make that necessary? Seems better to build a solid aircraft and put effort into avionics.

The justification I have seen is that they are trying to expand the current industrial base beyond the current 3 U.S. contractors. By opening up the procurement to many smaller programs instead of one gigantic one every 20 years, they're hoping to encourage new companies to compete with designs? That seems like wishful thinking.

Seems like a real fast way to throw money at unproven outfits and end up in the exact same boat, with projects late and underperforming.

Jonman wrote:
Boudreaux wrote:
qaraq wrote:

I'd ask why they're going to need a new airframe so often though. Are we really making such rapid advances in aerodynamics or stealth design to make that necessary? Seems better to build a solid aircraft and put effort into avionics.

The justification I have seen is that they are trying to expand the current industrial base beyond the current 3 U.S. contractors. By opening up the procurement to many smaller programs instead of one gigantic one every 20 years, they're hoping to encourage new companies to compete with designs? That seems like wishful thinking.

Seems like a real fast way to throw money at unproven outfits and end up in the exact same boat, with projects late and underperforming.

Everything you have said is super cool and valid but I think what we really need are disruptors.

Disruptors would be cool. Along with photon torpedoes, heavy blasters, Streak SRMs, and the Death Blossom. We should get to work on those.

Boudreaux wrote:

and the Death Blossom. We should get to work on those.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/XS5LK.gif)

Reaper81 wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Boudreaux wrote:
qaraq wrote:

I'd ask why they're going to need a new airframe so often though. Are we really making such rapid advances in aerodynamics or stealth design to make that necessary? Seems better to build a solid aircraft and put effort into avionics.

The justification I have seen is that they are trying to expand the current industrial base beyond the current 3 U.S. contractors. By opening up the procurement to many smaller programs instead of one gigantic one every 20 years, they're hoping to encourage new companies to compete with designs? That seems like wishful thinking.

Seems like a real fast way to throw money at unproven outfits and end up in the exact same boat, with projects late and underperforming.

Everything you have said is super cool and valid but I think what we really need are disruptors.

Uber, but for jet fighters.

thrawn82 wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:
bnpederson wrote:
Kehama wrote:

So new fighters every 5 years and the winning design gets a 3 year contract for 24 planes per year. They point out how designing and churning out jets with this kind of turnaround time was done in the 50's. Okay, sure, and I'm sure modern fighter aircraft are no more complicated than ones from the 1950's so I'm sure more testing and refinement time won't be needed than would have been 70 years ago. Ugh.

Anyway, taking this quote out of context makes me feel like this is the United State's motto now:

"How do you deal with a threat if you don’t know what the future technology is? Be the threat – always have a new airplane coming out."

The article also points out how even in the 50s you didn't actually have fighter jets being turned around in 5 years, as most of them were based on designs from 10 years previous that had seen real flight time.

I laughed aloud at the mention of Agile solutions to freaking fighter jets though. That stuff barely works for my enterprise software applications, I cannot imagine the Air Force getting their act together enough to make it work for building physical things.

And they want to lower maintenance costs by having multiple series of small fighters? I gotta tell that one to my mechanical engineering friends, they'll probably go between incredulous laughter and cringing at how much work that's going to be.

ALIS says, 'Hello.'

Oh. We're moving our top secret weapons development projects to the cloud. I'm sure nothing bad could possibly result from this.

China is gonna steal all of our tech no matter where we put it. Might as well save some money in the process.

It also will save the Soviets some money hacking in. Got to find another way to help Putin - got to keep the boss happy.

Mixolyde wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

ALIS says, 'Hello.'

Oh. We're moving our top secret weapons development projects to the cloud. I'm sure nothing bad could possibly result from this.

China is gonna steal all of our tech no matter where we put it. Might as well save some money in the process.

At least make them have to cultivate and pay some human intelligence to make it happen. No need to silver platter it for them.

Controversial take: China have already stolen most of the tech worth stealing.

That's why we're going back to steam. You can't hack steam!

Experts warn world ‘grossly unprepared’ for future pandemics

Wunderbar.

It sounds like an improbable fiction: a virulent flu pandemic, source unknown, spreads across the world in 36 hours, killing up to 80 million people, sparking panic, destabilising national security and slicing chunks off the world’s economy.

But a group of prominent international experts has issued a stark warning: such a scenario is entirely plausible and efforts by governments to prepare for it are “grossly insufficient”.

The first annual report by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, an independent group of 15 experts convened by the World Bank and WHO after the first Ebola crisis, describes the threat of a pandemic spreading around the world, potentially killing tens of millions of people, as “a real one”.

There are “increasingly dire risks” of epidemics, yet the world remained unprepared, the report said. It warned epidemic-prone diseases such as Ebola, influenza and Sars are increasingly difficult to manage in the face of increasing conflict, fragile states and rising migration. The climate crisis, urbanisation and a lack of adequate sanitation and water are breeding grounds for fast-spreading, catastrophic outbreaks.

“For too long, world leaders’ approaches to health emergencies have been characterised by a cycle of panic and neglect,” said Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, former prime minister of Norway and co-chair of the board alongside World Health Organization director Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Elhadj As Sy, the secretary general of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

“It is high time for urgent and sustained action. This must include increased funding at the community, national and international levels to prevent the spread of outbreaks. It also requires leaders to take proactive steps to strengthen preparedness coordination mechanisms across governments and society to respond quickly to an emergency.”

Why can’t we agree on what’s true anymore?

We live in a time of political fury and hardening cultural divides. But if there is one thing on which virtually everyone is agreed, it is that the news and information we receive is biased. Every second of every day, someone is complaining about bias, in everything from the latest movie reviews to sports commentary to the BBC’s coverage of Brexit. These complaints and controversies take up a growing share of public discussion.

Much of the outrage that floods social media, occasionally leaking into opinion columns and broadcast interviews, is not simply a reaction to events themselves, but to the way in which they are reported and framed. The “mainstream media” is the principle focal point for this anger. Journalists and broadcasters who purport to be neutral are a constant object of scrutiny and derision, whenever they appear to let their personal views slip. The work of journalists involves an increasing amount of unscripted, real-time discussion, which provides an occasionally troubling window into their thinking.

But this is not simply an anti-journalist sentiment. A similar fury can just as easily descend on a civil servant or independent expert whenever their veneer of neutrality seems to crack, apparently revealing prejudices underneath. Sometimes a report or claim is dismissed as biased or inaccurate for the simple reason that it is unwelcome: to a Brexiter, every bad economic forecast is just another case of the so-called project fear. A sense that the game is rigged now fuels public debate.

This mentality now spans the entire political spectrum and pervades societies around the world. A recent survey found that the majority of people globally believe their society is broken and their economy is rigged. Both the left and the right feel misrepresented and misunderstood by political institutions and the media, but the anger is shared by many in the liberal centre, who believe that populists have gamed the system to harvest more attention than they deserve. Outrage with “mainstream” institutions has become a mass sentiment.

This spirit of indignation was once the natural property of the left, which has long resented the establishment bias of the press. But in the present culture war, the right points to universities, the BBC and civil service as institutions that twist our basic understanding of reality to their own ends. Everyone can point to evidence that justifies their outrage. This arms race in cultural analysis is unwinnable.

This is not as simple as distrust. The appearance of digital platforms, smartphones and the ubiquitous surveillance they enable has ushered in a new public mood that is instinctively suspicious of anyone claiming to describe reality in a fair and objective fashion. It is a mindset that begins with legitimate curiosity about what motivates a given media story, but which ends in a Trumpian refusal to accept any mainstream or official account of the world. We can all probably locate ourselves somewhere on this spectrum, between the curiosity of the engaged citizen and the corrosive cynicism of the climate denier. The question is whether this mentality is doing us any good, either individually or collectively.

Public life has become like a play whose audience is unwilling to suspend disbelief. Any utterance by a public figure can be unpicked in search of its ulterior motive. As cynicism grows, even judges, the supposedly neutral upholders of the law, are publicly accused of personal bias. Once doubt descends on public life, people become increasingly dependent on their own experiences and their own beliefs about how the world really works. One effect of this is that facts no longer seem to matter (the phenomenon misleadingly dubbed “post-truth”). But the crisis of democracy and of truth are one and the same: individuals are increasingly suspicious of the “official” stories they are being told, and expect to witness things for themselves.

On one level, heightened scepticism towards the establishment is a welcome development. A more media-literate and critical citizenry ought to be less easy for the powerful to manipulate. It may even represent a victory for the type of cultural critique pioneered by intellectuals such as Pierre Bourdieu and Stuart Hall in the 1970s and 80s, revealing the injustices embedded in everyday cultural expressions and interactions.

But it is possible to have too much scepticism. How exactly do we distinguish this critical mentality from that of the conspiracy theorist, who is convinced that they alone have seen through the official version of events? Or to turn the question around, how might it be possible to recognise the most flagrant cases of bias in the behaviour of reporters and experts, but nevertheless to accept that what they say is often a reasonable depiction of the world?

It is tempting to blame the internet, populists or foreign trolls for flooding our otherwise rational society with lies. But this underestimates the scale of the technological and philosophical transformations that are under way. The single biggest change in our public sphere is that we now have an unimaginable excess of news and content, where once we had scarcity. Suddenly, the analogue channels and professions we depended on for our knowledge of the world have come to seem partial, slow and dispensable.

And yet, contrary to initial hype surrounding big data, the explosion of information available to us is making it harder, not easier, to achieve consensus on truth. As the quantity of information increases, the need to pick out bite-size pieces of content rises accordingly. In this radically sceptical age, questions of where to look, what to focus on and who to trust are ones that we increasingly seek to answer for ourselves, without the help of intermediaries. This is a liberation of sorts, but it is also at the heart of our deteriorating confidence in public institutions.

Goes to the bookshelves in my living room and finds "The Coming Plague" by Laurie Garrett.

It said the exact same thing. It even warned that humanity was kinda overdue for a global pandemic. And that the pandemic would be much, much worse than, say, the 1918 influenza outbreak because there's a lot more people around and it's so much easier for them to travel long distances very quickly.

Checks publish date. 1994. Cool, cool, cool.

It's a good thing that we, as a developed society, are regularly vaccinating ourselves and our children to hopefully mitigate the oncoming disaster.

We've already had a (suspected) anthrax outbreak because of permafrost melting. For all we know there's some 1918 influenza, smallpox, or any other choice of lovely little nasties getting closer and closer to to bubbling up .

Facebook excempts politicians from rules that ban "hate speech" and "false news"

Facebook has had a newsworthiness exemption since 2016. This means that if someone makes a statement or shares a post which breaks our community standards we will still allow it on our platform if we believe the public interest in seeing it outweighs the risk of harm. Today, I announced that from now on we will treat speech from politicians as newsworthy content that should, as a general rule, be seen and heard. However, in keeping with the principle that we apply different standards to content for which we receive payment, this will not apply to ads

Of course!
Propaganda profit or selling ads to cult followers of demagogues
Brilliant!

IMAGE(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/2q97YCXcLOlkoR2jKKEMQ-wkG9k=/0x0:900x500/1200x800/filters:focal(378x178:522x322)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49493993/this-is-fine.0.jpg)

JC wrote:

IMAGE(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/2q97YCXcLOlkoR2jKKEMQ-wkG9k=/0x0:900x500/1200x800/filters:focal(378x178:522x322)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49493993/this-is-fine.0.jpg)

not enough flames

Every Friday since 2009 the Federal Election Commission publishes a "Weekly Digest" on its website. Every Friday up until yesterday.

That's because a Republican FEC commissioner, Caroline Hunter, took umbrage at the inclusion of a draft memo in the Digest so she just sh*tcanned the entire Digest.

The title of that memo? “Draft Interpretive Rule Concerning Prohibited Activities Involving Foreign Nationals."

The FEC Chair Ellen L. Weintraub disagreed with Hunter's decision so she tweeted the entire Weekly Digest, including the memo.

UK’s Johnson denies wrongdoing as allegations mount

My first thought on reading this article- Wait, someone actually does his hair?

IMAGE(https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/e840d82f564047398a955021f8c74a8f/800.jpeg)