by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .708709710711712713714. . .957958»

Gothic vandelia wrote:Yay, Just got a new job after 5 weeks as a LEET living on saved money. Even got $400 extra a month.

So maybe everything about 2020 isn't sucking after all. :D

Heck yes, definitely a blessing in disguise.

Ephiny, The united federation of amestris, Gothic vandelia, and Elite leomonade

Gothic vandelia

Alpha wolf wrote:Heck yes, definitely a blessing in disguise.

Well, I can't be sure of that until I worked a month or 2 at the place but it is looking good. The difference between a good and a bad job is often who you work with after all.

But I do feel rather happy about it, with the pandemic unemployment is up all over the world so getting a new job isn't easy.
My kind of job isn't super common but there isn't much people with the knowledge and experience for it either so if there are a couple around I had pretty good chances. In fact I was interviewed at 2 different places recently but the other guys seems either slower or didn't bother to inform me they picked someone else (but they didn't sound like they were in a hurry, so I guess their loss).

I know some people in NS who had it worse them me though, a friend worked for a traveling agency in the Philippines and he got laid of in early Mars and haven't been around NS since April, I hope he is fine. And there are a few others from NA and EU as well.

Work might suck sometimes but being unemployed is horrible, particularly if you are so for a long time. Plenty of spare time and no money is a really bad combination. It wasn't so bad for me since it was 5 weeks, that is more like a vacation even if the uncertainty was tough. And I did have enough money for 4 months or so if worst have came to worst (took a slight dip in my "buy a Mustang account") it wouldn't be that terrible but many people live from paycheck to paycheck.

Alpha wolf, Ephiny, and The united federation of amestris

Gothic vandelia wrote:Well, I can't be sure of that until I worked a month or 2 at the place but it is looking good. The difference between a good and a bad job is often who you work with after all.

But I do feel rather happy about it, with the pandemic unemployment is up all over the world so getting a new job isn't easy.
My kind of job isn't super common but there isn't much people with the knowledge and experience for it either so if there are a couple around I had pretty good chances. In fact I was interviewed at 2 different places recently but the other guys seems either slower or didn't bother to inform me they picked someone else (but they didn't sound like they were in a hurry, so I guess their loss).

I know some people in NS who had it worse them me though, a friend worked for a traveling agency in the Philippines and he got laid of in early Mars and haven't been around NS since April, I hope he is fine. And there are a few others from NA and EU as well.

Work might suck sometimes but being unemployed is horrible, particularly if you are so for a long time. Plenty of spare time and no money is a really bad combination. It wasn't so bad for me since it was 5 weeks, that is more like a vacation even if the uncertainty was tough. And I did have enough money for 4 months or so if worst have came to worst (took a slight dip in my "buy a Mustang account") it wouldn't be that terrible but many people live from paycheck to paycheck.

Luckily I have been blessed to stay steadily employed if not getting overtime in the beginning of Covid.

Ephiny, The united federation of amestris, and Gothic vandelia

Gothic vandelia

Wow, scientists have figured out that smoking weeds when pregnant is bad for the kid... I could have told them that, seems like a waste of resources to me.
I think we already are pretty sure that drugs and booze are bad during pregnancy, and that includes tobacco. Now, Coffee could be worth researching, it could have some effect and certainly more on different prescription drugs but this study seems more useless then the guys who made alligators breath helium.

Makes one wonder who decides to fund certain projects. Science is important, but funds are limited so it seems smarter to put those money on something like a cure for cancer, solide batteries or maybe those windfarms that doesn't require huge propellers (no noice, no dead birds and can be put on high buildings without being ugly).

Just saying, what is next? A study if breathing in water might make you start drowning?

Alpha wolf, Ephiny, The united federation of amestris, and Apostate

Gothic vandelia wrote:Wow, scientists have figured out that smoking weeds when pregnant is bad for the kid... I could have told them that, seems like a waste of resources to me.
I think we already are pretty sure that drugs and booze are bad during pregnancy, and that includes tobacco. Now, Coffee could be worth researching, it could have some effect and certainly more on different prescription drugs but this study seems more useless then the guys who made alligators breath helium.

Makes one wonder who decides to fund certain projects. Science is important, but funds are limited so it seems smarter to put those money on something like a cure for cancer, solide batteries or maybe those windfarms that doesn't require huge propellers (no noice, no dead birds and can be put on high buildings without being ugly).

Just saying, what is next? A study if breathing in water might make you start drowning?

Ivory tower morons care more about answering stupid questions than benefiting mankind, which is the point of all science I should hope!

Alpha wolf, Ephiny, The united federation of amestris, Gothic vandelia, and 1 otherElite leomonade

Gothic vandelia

Apostate wrote:Ivory tower morons care more about answering stupid questions than benefiting mankind, which is the point of all science I should hope!

Agreed, but there are some exceptions. The Japanese 60 feet robot based on the Gundam anime they just completed is fine in my book even if the benefits to mankind there is a bit doubtful.

It at least is awesome. :) And who knows, maybe it eventually leads to something useful. Military science is getting a lot of funding and you can make the same argument there, much military technology have become useful for civilians too, like jet engines for instance. The first "real" planes using the technology were the Me 262 but now they mean we can travel faster. The Manhattan project lead to us getting carbon neutral energy for an acceptable price. And so on.

More studies of things we already know is another matter. With a finite funding it is important to focus on things that is actually useful.

In some cases private industry shows the way. Space X certainly have shown us a few things the last few years, particularly if you compare their progress on Starship compared to NASA's Artemis project. NASA have spent over 10 years and an insane amount of money on their new rocket who is designed to get to the moon, while Space X have passed them in just a couple of years with a far more modest budget. Heck, NASA spent a lot of money to modify rocket engines meant for the space shuttle, which made them cost more then building new ones from scratch. That said, it might still be useful to NASA to have alternatives to Space X's Mars rocket, but SLS huge cost compared to Starship even though Starship is way more powerful makes one wonder if they shouldn't consider how they develop things like it.

But there are certainly things private companies have no interest in researching that is still worth learning. Like the fact that smoking leads to cancer for instance. I ain't complaining about research like that.

Alpha wolf, Ephiny, The united federation of amestris, and Apostate

Just more government pork.

Alpha wolf, The united federation of amestris, Apostate, and Gothic vandelia

Gothic vandelia

Ephiny wrote:Just more government pork.

In SLS case, it is a bit more strange. The rocket is far less powerful then the Saturn rocket, it is slightly cheaper (counting Saturn in today's money) but not much at all and it have actually already taken longer to build.

You could argue that NASA had better budget during the space race but the Artemis project is using a lot of Apollos infra structure like launchpads, spaceport, factories and so on (I am not counting that in for the price comparison between rockets) but I don't think that is relevant here.

SLS will (hopefully) be a lot safer though.

Starship in comparison is low budget but it has stats close to Saturn.

So the question is why NASA bothered too create a new rocket that in many ways are worse then one they already are familiar with. The Lunar landar is a very different matter, the new one will be way better and the crew capsule are also a step forward. I feel that they either should have gone bigger or just used a slightly updated Saturn instead.

I am guessing it has to do with politics though. The cheapest solution would have been to throw some extra money on Elon Musk but I am saying that with a knowledge NASA and the politicians lacked 10 years ago. Few people believed Space X would accomplish what they already done and people were laughing at Starship just 2 years ago. In fact, we are still laughing at Musk's claims of sending a manned expedition to Mars in 2024... And now NASA have put a lot of money on SLS so they might as well finish the project.

(Yeah, I might have spent a bit too much time watching youtube the 5 weeks I was temporary unemployed learning all this and far more).

Alpha wolf, Ephiny, The united federation of amestris, and Apostate

Gothic vandelia wrote:In SLS case, it is a bit more strange. The rocket is far less powerful then the Saturn rocket, it is slightly cheaper (counting Saturn in today's money) but not much at all and it have actually already taken longer to build.

You could argue that NASA had better budget during the space race but the Artemis project is using a lot of Apollos infra structure like launchpads, spaceport, factories and so on (I am not counting that in for the price comparison between rockets) but I don't think that is relevant here.

SLS will (hopefully) be a lot safer though.

Starship in comparison is low budget but it has stats close to Saturn.

So the question is why NASA bothered too create a new rocket that in many ways are worse then one they already are familiar with. The Lunar landar is a very different matter, the new one will be way better and the crew capsule are also a step forward. I feel that they either should have gone bigger or just used a slightly updated Saturn instead.

I am guessing it has to do with politics though. The cheapest solution would have been to throw some extra money on Elon Musk but I am saying that with a knowledge NASA and the politicians lacked 10 years ago. Few people believed Space X would accomplish what they already done and people were laughing at Starship just 2 years ago. In fact, we are still laughing at Musk's claims of sending a manned expedition to Mars in 2024... And now NASA have put a lot of money on SLS so they might as well finish the project.

(Yeah, I might have spent a bit too much time watching youtube the 5 weeks I was temporary unemployed learning all this and far more).

Nothing wrong with that, I like watching documentaries on various subjects.

Ephiny, The united federation of amestris, and Gothic vandelia

Gothic vandelia wrote:In SLS case, it is a bit more strange. The rocket is far less powerful then the Saturn rocket, it is slightly cheaper (counting Saturn in today's money) but not much at all and it have actually already taken longer to build.

You could argue that NASA had better budget during the space race but the Artemis project is using a lot of Apollos infra structure like launchpads, spaceport, factories and so on (I am not counting that in for the price comparison between rockets) but I don't think that is relevant here.

SLS will (hopefully) be a lot safer though.

Starship in comparison is low budget but it has stats close to Saturn.

So the question is why NASA bothered too create a new rocket that in many ways are worse then one they already are familiar with. The Lunar landar is a very different matter, the new one will be way better and the crew capsule are also a step forward. I feel that they either should have gone bigger or just used a slightly updated Saturn instead.

I am guessing it has to do with politics though. The cheapest solution would have been to throw some extra money on Elon Musk but I am saying that with a knowledge NASA and the politicians lacked 10 years ago. Few people believed Space X would accomplish what they already done and people were laughing at Starship just 2 years ago. In fact, we are still laughing at Musk's claims of sending a manned expedition to Mars in 2024... And now NASA have put a lot of money on SLS so they might as well finish the project.

(Yeah, I might have spent a bit too much time watching youtube the 5 weeks I was temporary unemployed learning all this and far more).

I wa sin my pool this summer at night floating and looking at the sky. I saw a string of satellites go but, I thought they were aliens. I googled it right quick and it turned out Spacex had just deployed 60 satellites and they were spreading out. It was shocking but also awe inspiring to see what private industry can do. 60 at a time!

Alpha wolf, Ephiny, The united federation of amestris, and Gothic vandelia

Gothic vandelia

Alpha wolf wrote:Nothing wrong with that, I like watching documentaries on various subjects.

Me too.
History, science, religion, military, geology, archaeology... and more.

But I get annoyed when something they say seem a bit odd so I factcheck it and it is wrong. I can buy that our knowledge of things improve so old documentaries rely information that might be dated but it is often laziness.

If you want to make an historical documentary for instance you might want to read up on the last few years of archaeology. Saying things like the Clovis culture were the first humans in America when even the conservative Smithsonian agree with most archaeologists and genetics that there were people there far earlier (exactly how much earlier is still up to debate but even the most conservative historians agree that there is clear evidence for at least 5000 years).

It is even worse when they state "facts" I know is wrong (I still fact check them, so I ain't wrong). If you are bothering to make a documentary at least get your facts straight. I am way less hard on youtube channels then Discovery, History channel and BC there, but surprisingly are those usually worse. If someone like Skallagrim or Shad say something wrong that isn't really shocking since they make their own research and try to make it entertaining.

I guess I shouldn't be surprising the "History channel" tend to be the worst of them, but one would think a channel with that name should do it's research.

The Youtube channels often surprise me how well made and researched they are. Even watching a program of something I know a lot about have a lot of new things to learn. :)

Of course others are pretty awful but you can't win them all. Like I was watching this pretty well done show examining if the Australian aboriginals actually arrived far earlier then expected, when it was made the official date was 45 000 years ago but it have been moved to 55 000 since, much due to evidence in the show and they made some interesting arguments for 75 000 years too. But suddenly after an hour they showed this strange 40 000 year old artifact and claimed it was made by aliens. He sounded so professional and well researched until that moment only to spend the last 15 minutes in foil hat territory. He might or might not be right about that 75 000 year old shelter but he kinda burnt all my confidence in anything he said earlier there. And it was really sad since it is an interesting subject that require more fieldwork, just like we don't know when humans first arrived in America we aren't really sure and it is likely it was earlier then we expect in both cases.

Sorry, I seem to be ranting...

Alpha wolf, Ephiny, and The united federation of amestris

Gothic vandelia wrote:Me too.
History, science, religion, military, geology, archaeology... and more.

But I get annoyed when something they say seem a bit odd so I factcheck it and it is wrong. I can buy that our knowledge of things improve so old documentaries rely information that might be dated but it is often laziness.

If you want to make an historical documentary for instance you might want to read up on the last few years of archaeology. Saying things like the Clovis culture were the first humans in America when even the conservative Smithsonian agree with most archaeologists and genetics that there were people there far earlier (exactly how much earlier is still up to debate but even the most conservative historians agree that there is clear evidence for at least 5000 years).

It is even worse when they state "facts" I know is wrong (I still fact check them, so I ain't wrong). If you are bothering to make a documentary at least get your facts straight. I am way less hard on youtube channels then Discovery, History channel and BC there, but surprisingly are those usually worse. If someone like Skallagrim or Shad say something wrong that isn't really shocking since they make their own research and try to make it entertaining.

I guess I shouldn't be surprising the "History channel" tend to be the worst of them, but one would think a channel with that name should do it's research.

The Youtube channels often surprise me how well made and researched they are. Even watching a program of something I know a lot about have a lot of new things to learn. :)

Of course others are pretty awful but you can't win them all. Like I was watching this pretty well done show examining if the Australian aboriginals actually arrived far earlier then expected, when it was made the official date was 45 000 years ago but it have been moved to 55 000 since, much due to evidence in the show and they made some interesting arguments for 75 000 years too. But suddenly after an hour they showed this strange 40 000 year old artifact and claimed it was made by aliens. He sounded so professional and well researched until that moment only to spend the last 15 minutes in foil hat territory. He might or might not be right about that 75 000 year old shelter but he kinda burnt all my confidence in anything he said earlier there. And it was really sad since it is an interesting subject that require more fieldwork, just like we don't know when humans first arrived in America we aren't really sure and it is likely it was earlier then we expect in both cases.

Sorry, I seem to be ranting...

No not at all. What you say is right on.

Dang it, my card value slipped, I'm down to 160th again. 😐

Ephiny, The united federation of amestris, and Gothic vandelia

Gothic vandelia

Alpha wolf wrote:No not at all. What you say is right on.

Dang it, my card value slipped, I'm down to 160th again. 😐

I know that feeling, my arms manufacturing is jumping between 76 and 79 all the time. So much of those values are depending on other nations after all.

I am surprised that nations who have been around for 10 years aren't more competitive. With the cards that is logical since they are relatively new and there is a rather high amount of luck involved. I think my Frisbeteria card is more worth then all my other cards combined and that was just pure dumb luck. I been working the market a little but not really that much.

Strangely is the card probably the toughest to get into the top 100 in besides population and influence who is rather impossible unless you been around for a long time. I been playing NS for 3 years and I been in the top 100 AM for 6 months and top 100 for manufacturing the last month (which I honestly didn't even try for). 2 1/2 years to get in the top 100 might sound a lot but I didn't actually care about the stat att all the first 6 months, focusing on trout fishing instead back then so it wasn't as hard as I thought to get there even if getting below 50 seems tough.

Alpha wolf, Ephiny, and The united federation of amestris

I have a number of nations in the World Top Ten for random things. Try and find them.

Alpha wolf, The united federation of amestris, and Gothic vandelia

Gothic vandelia

Ephiny wrote:I have a number of nations in the World Top Ten for random things. Try and find them.

That is close to impossible. I tried to find similar nations to yours with a similar flag (there was one in most conservative but they had a Dutch sounding coinage so that was a dud) in things you are top 10% in, assuming at least one other nation have a similar playstyle. No luck, and going through every stat would take me hours (and that is hours I don't have tonight, my GF is on the way over and will be here within an hour as long as she avoids all boars, moose, deer and other wildlife around here. She lives on the west coast and they don't have as much wildlife there).

Ephiny and The united federation of amestris

The united federation of amestris

Gothic vandelia wrote:Me too.
History, science, religion, military, geology, archaeology... and more.

But I get annoyed when something they say seem a bit odd so I factcheck it and it is wrong. I can buy that our knowledge of things improve so old documentaries rely information that might be dated but it is often laziness.

If you want to make an historical documentary for instance you might want to read up on the last few years of archaeology. Saying things like the Clovis culture were the first humans in America when even the conservative Smithsonian agree with most archaeologists and genetics that there were people there far earlier (exactly how much earlier is still up to debate but even the most conservative historians agree that there is clear evidence for at least 5000 years).

It is even worse when they state "facts" I know is wrong (I still fact check them, so I ain't wrong). If you are bothering to make a documentary at least get your facts straight. I am way less hard on youtube channels then Discovery, History channel and BC there, but surprisingly are those usually worse. If someone like Skallagrim or Shad say something wrong that isn't really shocking since they make their own research and try to make it entertaining.

I guess I shouldn't be surprising the "History channel" tend to be the worst of them, but one would think a channel with that name should do it's research.

The Youtube channels often surprise me how well made and researched they are. Even watching a program of something I know a lot about have a lot of new things to learn. :)

Of course others are pretty awful but you can't win them all. Like I was watching this pretty well done show examining if the Australian aboriginals actually arrived far earlier then expected, when it was made the official date was 45 000 years ago but it have been moved to 55 000 since, much due to evidence in the show and they made some interesting arguments for 75 000 years too. But suddenly after an hour they showed this strange 40 000 year old artifact and claimed it was made by aliens. He sounded so professional and well researched until that moment only to spend the last 15 minutes in foil hat territory. He might or might not be right about that 75 000 year old shelter but he kinda burnt all my confidence in anything he said earlier there. And it was really sad since it is an interesting subject that require more fieldwork, just like we don't know when humans first arrived in America we aren't really sure and it is likely it was earlier then we expect in both cases.

Sorry, I seem to be ranting...

Just wait until the "History" Channel or someone like that says that some random micro state that barely ever existed like Neutral Morsenet is actually the Illuminati or something like that. It is really disappointing that we can't charge "sources" such as the "History" Channel with defamation or something like that...
I mean, I'm all for freedom of the press and of speech, but seriously, do you really need to spread THAT much misinformation?

Ephiny and Gothic vandelia

Gothic vandelia

The united federation of amestris wrote:Just wait until the "History" Channel or someone like that says that some random micro state that barely ever existed like Neutral Morsenet is actually the Illuminati or something like that. It is really disappointing that we can't charge "sources" such as the "History" Channel with defamation or something like that...
I mean, I'm all for freedom of the press and of speech, but seriously, do you really need to spread THAT much misinformation?

Oh yes. And the Illuminati created 5G to spread the Corona virus... Seriously, there is a lot of incredible stupid theories around the net.
But I think it is more likely they would say all these things about aliens instead of the Illuminati.

It is rather strange Illuminati got all these weird conspiracies around it, it was a tiny Italian group who wanted to make something similar to Freemasons in the late 18th century but their leader screwed up, the organization fell apart and he died poor. So the Illuminati did exist in small number for a few years but they never really acquired much power. I assume someone picked them at random as bad guys in a book to start this off, kinda like people believe the DaVinci code is based in fact.

For that matter is the holy Grail first from an 12th century book who also was just a story and a surprisingly large part of humanity consider it as real now.

In the Illuminati's case I assume it is easy to blame them for people being poor and have no political power. It is more palatable then the alternative.

History channel started out with good intentions, until that Greek guy with the wild hairdo persuaded them to show his Ancient aliens show on it. It went fast downward ever since.

Alpha wolf and Ephiny

Gothic vandelia wrote:Oh yes. And the Illuminati created 5G to spread the Corona virus... Seriously, there is a lot of incredible stupid theories around the net.
But I think it is more likely they would say all these things about aliens instead of the Illuminati.

It is rather strange Illuminati got all these weird conspiracies around it, it was a tiny Italian group who wanted to make something similar to Freemasons in the late 18th century but their leader screwed up, the organization fell apart and he died poor. So the Illuminati did exist in small number for a few years but they never really acquired much power. I assume someone picked them at random as bad guys in a book to start this off, kinda like people believe the DaVinci code is based in fact.

For that matter is the holy Grail first from an 12th century book who also was just a story and a surprisingly large part of humanity consider it as real now.

In the Illuminati's case I assume it is easy to blame them for people being poor and have no political power. It is more palatable then the alternative.

History channel started out with good intentions, until that Greek guy with the wild hairdo persuaded them to show his Ancient aliens show on it. It went fast downward ever since.

I foresee TWC being on the History Channel, its goona show our humble beginnings and then the gradual rise of an empire, chewing up our enemies one piece at a time ever so painfully while we express joy over their agony and our present climb to the top.

Man, what a story, there might just be a movie on it.😂

Vupatay, Ephiny, and Gothic vandelia

Gothic vandelia

Alpha wolf wrote:I foresee TWC being on the History Channel, its goona show our humble beginnings and then the gradual rise of an empire, chewing up our enemies one piece at a time ever so painfully while we express joy over their agony and our present climb to the top.

Man, what a story, there might just be a movie on it.😂

You know, it isn't a bad idea.

When I was in the Radiant, Odinburgh actually had written the down a detailed history of the region which he updated until the region closed down. It was pretty fun to read, particularly about the 2 civil wars when people split into 2 regions, really messed with eachother before joining back again.

I must admit that doing a Youtube vid on a similar concept with the history of TWC is not a bad idea, or a couple covering a different period in time.
Not that I would do it, it would really be someone who has been here a long time and know what he/she is talking about.

Alpha wolf and Ephiny

Gothic vandelia wrote:You know, it isn't a bad idea.

When I was in the Radiant, Odinburgh actually had written the down a detailed history of the region which he updated until the region closed down. It was pretty fun to read, particularly about the 2 civil wars when people split into 2 regions, really messed with eachother before joining back again.

I must admit that doing a Youtube vid on a similar concept with the history of TWC is not a bad idea, or a couple covering a different period in time.
Not that I would do it, it would really be someone who has been here a long time and know what he/she is talking about.

We been in so much stuff, I can't even remember all that. Not a bad idea about the video though.

Gothic vandelia

Gothic vandelia

Alpha wolf wrote:We been in so much stuff, I can't even remember all that. Not a bad idea about the video though.

Such a project would really need to be a joint effort among nations who have been here a long time. Even if you would remember something perfectly other people tend to pick up different details.

So the best way to do it is basically to have a forum thread and discuss each period between everyone who was there and then have an editor that writes it together into one understandable text who can be read.

Then making a monthly episode or so. I think this would be a rather great thing to have that newspaper guy add to his list, there was some complaining that much of the material he posted wasn't pro-TWC and I think that would gain us some members too if we can make it fun to watch.

Maybe showing the flags or cards of nations involved to add a bit of visuals as well. And segments like speaking a little about things like Amestria's wargames, maybe someone who got a medal or just a fun story that happened during the period to add a little more then just the history lesson.

And it was really your idea, not mine. ;)

Edit: Wow, I just read that some Smiths in modern Iran actually made stainless steel a 1000 years ago. https://www.archaeology.org/news
That is rather strange, everyone thought it was a 20th century invention (even though we know that the terracotta army had a little chromium in their iron blades to prevent rust, but this is far more and there is a huge difference between crucible steel and iron). The more you know...

Alpha wolf and Ephiny

OK who wants to be delegate? The Poll says replace. So who wants a turn?

Ephiny and Elite leomonade

Apostate wrote:OK who wants to be delegate? The Poll says replace. So who wants a turn?

Why not Gothic, he is active.

Elite leomonade

http://www.reptilianagenda.com/index.shtml
Found this website while trying to find out where the flag for Frisbeeteria came from...
Quite the interesting rabbit hole if I do say so myself...

Alpha wolf and Ephiny

Elite leomonade

this new flag is wild...

Alpha wolf and Ephiny

«12. . .708709710711712713714. . .957958»

Advertisement