That is all well and good, but the F35 is not just a sniper. It's a multi-role aircraft that needs to be an interceptor, a bomber, and a close ground support plane. You can be a 'sniper' and hide long range in interceptor mode, but bombing and close ground support are not going to be as kind to a plane that relies completely on stealth to overcome it's shortcomings in maneuverability, etc.

Additionally, the sheer cost of the vehicle is going to make it prohibitive for our allies to purchase it, meaning that in NATO combat groups, we will have it and our allies won't. It also means that we can't offset the trillion dollar development cost in ally purchases. Of course, it is likely that we won't even try to export it for the risk of having the stealth breached. We didn't export the F22 for similar reasons and it is dead now.

The simple fact is that we have sunk a ton of money into a pit and for little return. There are still huge long term delays in Russian and Chinese stealth programs, so just like the F22, this plane is going to come into production with no real enemies to fight against. Are we going to risk sending these vs last gen or earlier systems when our older planes are still more advanced than those and cost far less?

We aren't going to stop making this plane, we've gone too far. But it is going to be just as much of a waste as the F22 and probably more of a debacle when the enemy does come up with hardware capable of defeating it's stealth capabilities. Once that happens, we have a plane that is worse than the previous generation facing enemies more than capable of taking it out of the sky.

*dead again... sort of... (damn you private mode *shakes tiny fist*)

I like that little extra shell-ring thingy he's got on the shotgun you can see him using to reload right before the slow motion bit. I've never seen one of those before and at first I thought he was pushing a mis-fired shell back into the chamber (or whatever you call it in a shotgun, the breach?), which asking about was the reason I started this comment until I watched it a third time.

I've never fired a semi-automatic shotgun (or any kind of shotgun since I was 15 or so) but I do recall a 12-gauge having a not insignificant amount of recoil, and I've heard from a SWAT guy that semi-automatic shotguns are frowned upon because people in panic-firefight-mode tend to pull the trigger too fast and end up shooting the ceiling. He seems to have no problem though.

@Payback -- that helps with the "how", thanks.

A big part of my confusion was/is from how it started the hop *before* it got close to the object. Without driver input that would require sensors aiming ahead (some mix of cameras, sonar, laser range, etc.) that I can see being a part of a car built around such a system from the ground up, but would go beyond the scope of a drop-in "suspension replacement".

But I can see a reactive suspension system working like that -- it has a computer control unit that normally just responds to sensors in the suspension (reactive rather than predictive), but has a button that can manually initiate that maneuver just like you described. In that way I guess it isn't that much different from a Tesla Model S "insane mode"; driver initiates it and the computer (and car) does the rest.

Interesting.

You need to be *skillful with a steady hand in this *ftw *timeshift video! I missed an eye poppin' though. I was probably in 'eyes wide shut' mode at that moment.

I'd say it goes from 4 to 6 comfortably. It may be possible to alter the design. If you did, I think it would probably scale at the same rate... 5-7.5, 6-9, 7-10.5. Doubling would provide useful, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

Still pretty awesome table. Another cool part of the design is the ease which it transfers to the bigger mode. No more storing leaves in the basement or having to have two people to pull it open.

I totally disagree. In small mode, it would seat 4-5 comfortably, in large mode, easily 8-10. Doubling the seating is significant to me.
Also, coolest table in the neighborhood is worth a few bonus points....but for that you should motorize it. Those are the best.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Weird to see Colbert in a semi-serious mode. US election is feeling kind of apocalyptic to me at this point, as viewed from a distance in Australia.

Totally agree with power ups. It should be doable with augmented reality in a way that's not possible with other sports.

Maybe fly at 75% power unless you hit a boost. Pick up offensive power ups you can target at other racers to reduce their power momentarily or send them into a 3 second hover mode.

Apologies, I got carried away... wall of text incoming.

@RedSky

I agree, monetary policy at low rates has very little to offer in terms of economic stimulus. Then again, the focus almost solely on monetary policy is part of the problem. Fiscal policy can have a massive impact, both directly (government purchases of goods and services) and indirectly (increase in automatic stabilizers). But for that you either need to be in control of your central bank, so that you can engage in Overt Monetary Financing ("printing" money). Or you need the blessing of the private banks, which is particularly true for a Vollgeld system.

The budget is the core of a parliamentary democracy, and to be at the whim of the folks at Deutsche Bank, HSBC or Credit Suisse -- no, thank you very much. We saw how that played out in Greece.

Anyway, the central bank can do miraculous things: if it provides funds to the democratically elected body in charge of the budget, aka parliament/the government. Trying to "motivate" the private banks to stock up on cheap reserves to stimulate lending is just a sign of ideology.

The great Michal Kalecki, in his essay The Political Aspects of Full Employment, summarized the general issue of government spending quite clearly. The industrial leaders stand in opposition to government spending aimed at full employment for three distinct reasons: a) dislike of government interference in the problem of employment as such; b) dislike of the direction of government spending (public investment and subsidizing consumption); c) dislike of the social and political changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment.

I'd say control over your currency is too great a tool to leave it in the hands of unelected managers. Clement Attlee knew very well why he had to nationalize the Bank of England in '46.

Back to the issue of inflation, I'd like to make two points. First, how big a role should inflation really play when talking policy. Second, what's the influence of a central bank on inflation.

Where does it come from, this focus on inflation. People usually talk about government spending when discussing inflation. Private spending is rarely brought up, even though it can be just as inflationary. So let's ignore private spending for a moment and talk purely government spending: should a deficit/surplus not be judged primarily by how well it helps us achieve our macroeconomic goals? Or more clearly, why should we sacrifice full employment or our general welfare on the altar of inflation? Yes, that's over the top. But so is the angst of inflation.

I'd say let's stick with Abba Lerner's concept of functional finance and judge deficits/surpluses purely by how well they help us achieve our macroeconomic goals. Besides, the US has run massive deficits during the GFC, so much in fact, that a great number of monetarists saw hyperinflation just around the corner. Still waiting for it. Same for Japan. Massive deficits... and deflation.

As long as spending, both private and government, doesn't push the economy beyond its limits (full employment, real resources, production capacity), out-of-control inflation just doesn't materialize. Plus, suppressing inflation is actually one thing central banks can do quite well. Unlike causing inflation, which both Japan and the EU are showcases off. Draghi can dance naked on the table, monetary policy (QE, mainly) won't push inflation upwards.

Which brings me to the second point: what's inflation, what's the cause of inflation, how can central banks manipulate it.

CPI is often used as a measure of inflation, but I prefer the GDP deflator. CPI doesn't account for externalities that you cannot influence, whatever you do. Prime case: the price of oil. Monetary policy of the Bank of Sweden has no influence on the price of oil. The GDP inflator, however, accounts for every economic activity within your currency zone -- much more useful.

General theory says, this measure of inflation goes up when demand surpasses supply. And vice versa. The primary factor of demand is domestic purchasing power, therefore wages. If you suppress wages, you suppress inflation. If you push wages, you push inflation. More specifically, you can see a direct correlation between unit labour costs and the GDP deflator in every country at any time. Here's a general graph for multiple countries, and the St. Louis FED provides a beauty for the US.

That's why it's easy for central banks to combat inflation, but almost impossible to fight deflation.

Speaking as someone who played since the original I completely get where you are coming from.

But, this is easily the most R6 a game has felt since raven shield and once you start to learn the maps and build up a team the planning stage kind of comes into it's own.

I know it's not the same as spending hours tweaking the plan alone (before watching your AI sqaud mess it up). But the tactical depth is very much still there.

Terrorist hunt on realistic difficulty is the equal of any challenge I had in the old R6's, more so really considering the destruction and tools available.

A game with a good team, scouting with drones and breach/sweeping together feels every bit as tense and cerebral as before IMHO.

The only big downside is you need other players, there is a lone wolf mode, but no AI teammates regrettably.

The AI in terrorist hunt mode might actually be the best I've ever faced in an FPS. I play that mode more than the PvP tbh.

They react to sound like people, shoot blind through cover to probe for you, attack you where your are weak, pull back where you are too strong etc.

Bastards even recognise your choke points and sabotage them by opening other routes and or destroying obstacles. (Or recognise you are outflanking theirs if you make too much noise etc.)

Make you think and move more in terms of what makes real world sense than simply what will outfox the AI.

TBH they are often smarter than the human players who play like they are in COD or BF and wonder why the tactical players keep shafting them.

Jon is in full Moses mode now. Grow out that God smitten hair and bring us to the promised land.

What we have here is a translation issue: a clear example of how cats and dogs simply do not understand each other's body language.

The dog starts by trying to determine where he stands in the pack hierarchy with regards to the cat, albeit with all his aggressiveness tempered by the humans standing around him and showing some favoritism (or at least protection towards) the cat. When the cat refuses to react in a predictable dog-like manner, the dog takes the cat's glowering stare to mean the cat is the alpha and goes into full submissive mode... and when that doesn't work, he whines in confusion.

Meanwhile, the cat sees all this as the stalking of a potentially hostile carnivore who is significantly larger than it, and has ears back, eyes wide and is ready to swat at its opponent if this strange creature becomes to aggressive.

It's not that cats and dogs dislike each other: they just don't speak the same language. Eventually, the housemates will probably work out a sort of patios between them (more on the part of the dog than the cat) and will come to a more comfortable understanding.

It's not that the cat doesn't want to play; he simply doesn't understand that the dog is making an invitation.

This game is so painful. I really hope the SC team stops listening to the hate, I hope they can maintain their teams, maintain focus, creativity, I hope they have enough money to last another 5 years of development, I hope this game turns out great. I really hope this turns out to be better than Elite a game that I found unfortunately boring. Will revisit once Occulus comes out, smoke a fat one and go on a cosmic voyage.

SC was/is one centered around PC gaming and dreams - I spent $40.00 on this game, which isn't much in my opinion in order to help a dream, a dream that I also want to delve into. My hope is not diminished yet and I do not care about delving into the rumors, anger and frustration. It is just a motherfucking video game. One that we all hope will be unbelievably good...

Realistically, these guys have probably promised too much, hopefully all the different modules add up to something cohesive - even if they have to detract from open world shit. I don't mind if they scale back to focus on story & content as long as the crafts feel solid. The alpha the control of the ships suck ass. Hopefully, both the controls and FPS mode are tight. If they can't pull off a huge scale, open-world game... no worries, I think working it to something more linear if the game mechanics are fun. Open-world games have been shit mostly anyways, Witcher 3 is a masterpiece though.

Derek Smart is an OCD creep he can go fuck himself and his games are shit! I mean kudos to him for having a lot of talent to do it himself and get shit released even if the content sucks.