Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 349 posts

Re: A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

#331

Post by Zenst »

stardek wrote: post #270
t0mas88 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that more and more recently, English spelled phonetically. Like "their" instead of "they're" and the example above. Very curious whether it's an American thing or foreigners writing a non-native language.

With the most common North American accent "would've" and "would of" sound very similar. My suspicion is that the error tends to arise in people that have learned language more from speaking than reading.

In my instance, that would have a strong correlation and never read fictional material, autistic spectrum imagination thing for me, but love burning thru an RFC.

So in my instance, I would tend to agree with that observation and support that as a large factor from personal experience.

Re: A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

#332

Post by Zenst »

mkl wrote: post #273
jowsie wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a brit and do it out of lazyness.

How does that work? Surely deliberately typing the wrong word takes more effort?

Not necessarily due to muscle memory and easy of access upon keyboard or mostly soft keyboard layout for punctuation access. But mostly muscle memory. Heck could even view having to add the extra layer of shortening a two words into one is a process born out to save ink in a time when ink and print space was more costly and perhaps a form of lazyness that is more accepted than just having the full words.

Like most things, perspective plays a part in how you view such things and we are all aware that such oversights can trigger people as much as those triggered responses being triggers for others. Which is odd as the meaning of words is how to communicate and in the instance of shorting words, nothing is lost in translation.

But then standards in words and layout, styles, when it comes to standards are more complex than any coding standards and we all know how legacy code works out when it comes to standards. Another way to view that is, imagine if COBOL had as many verbs as we do English words - yeah scary what legacy code would look like then and sorry if that becomes the source of any nightmares in old COBOL programmers with that analogy.

Re: A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

#333

Post by Zenst »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #274
mkl wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that work? Surely deliberately typing the wrong word takes more effort?

No. It takes more effort to clearly remember and apply all such distinctions. These are the sorts of mistakes typically made by native speakers for whom they sound the same and inability to remember that they are spelled differently has zero bearing on spoken fluency. It's a different skill set and a different part of the brain.

WHat may be seen as a mistake, is in many ways akin to local accents and in the UK, we have many local accents that can and do make verbal communication just as much throught with interpretation more than wording. Yet verbal accent and localisms are more accepted than the written forms.

After all - how many of us have the internal verbal processing rule now that hears the word "good" when we hear the word "Bad" based around the age and maturity of the speaker? Many I suspect and that is just one of many you end up having to mentally compile into your rule list, just to communicate with people who are not yourself.

Imagine a coding language that gained new verbs daily, new rules and interpretation rules that change the dynamics of those words - yes languages can be hard to keep abreast with if you try to grasp every nuance as what is correct today, is not tomorrow. Jst try reading Chaucer and then wonder how fast until what is written today is viewed as another language in years ahead, even if the same language as languages evolve and English like many move faster than we imagine. Composing words into sentences that stand the test of time, now that is a skill. However even time can be cruel on the best intentions.

Re: A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

#334

Post by _2d30 »

angry_octet wrote: post #309
_2d30 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interesting. Anywhere I can learn more about this or if you have the chance, would you expand?

https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/air-force-in-crisis-part-i... https://federalnewsnetwork.com/dod-personnel-notebook/2019/0... https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-considering-sto... https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-is-still-sh... https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations... And that doesn't even touch the shitshow which is drone crew morale.

Thank you!

Re: A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

#335

Post by TechBro8615 »

xnyan wrote: post #323
TechBro8615 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I don't want people to die because a tyrannical government decides it needs to occupy the population. It's acceptable to me that some people will die as a result of gun violence, if it means the citizenry keeps its right to bear arms. Every homicide is a tragedy, but the weapons are not the problem nor the cause. If you want to restrict the rights afforded by the 2nd amendment, would you like to restrict some oth…

You completely misunderstand reality. When the F-35 comes to liquefy your house, I’m sure your gun will do a lot to defend yourself. You don’t have the smallest chance of defending yourself from the government, the only thing gun ownership does is let people shoot each other for no good reason. This is an incontrovertible fact proven by statistics of gun ownership countries a.k.a. the US versus others.

If you truly believe this, I would urge you to take a look at the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan and the decades long occupations thereof by the US. I'd also recommend reading The Seventh Sense: Power, Fortune, and Survival in the Age of Networks by Josh Ramo, which examines this phenomenon in depth.

Re: A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

#336

Post by RealityVoid »

minikites wrote: post #315
StillBored wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there was the killdozer guy, who did just that with what was basically a homemade tank. Which in a way proves that a sufficiently motivated individual isn't going to be stopped by silly laws against owning this stuff.

Why have laws at all then?

To stop the insufficiently motivated ones.

Re: A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

#337

Post by wwweston »

StillBored wrote: post #294
wwweston wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much of the current personal arms policy debate in the US is about whether we should strive to make it impossible for criminals or civil rights activists to get a gun. It's about the margins of ease, how that can or should vary by person, how capacity or type of weapon matters, legal exposure of different kind of carrying, and other matters that could reasonably fall under "well-regulated." For example, some peop…

Ugh, historically the civil rights activist is the one who would have been denied that right...

If the state outlaws civil rights activism, then civil rights activists will be outlaws, irrespective of firearm liberties.

And indefensible law does not make having defensible policy unreasonable.

Re: A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

#338

Post by flashman »

justin66 wrote: post #62

It's quite interesting that Australia wants to let these go in favor of the F-35, rather than maintaining them in a reserve capacity. Letting the F-111 go in favor of the F/A-18 made a lot of sense because they were obsolescent and expensive to operate. In this case, I wonder if they might regret it if they ever face a period of increased military tensions.

As early as 2012 the RAAF Hornet fleet flight activities (12-13000 hours per year) were estimated to exhaust the fleets' lifetime airframe limits (6000 hours) in 2020.[1] Keeping them in the air beyond this year was going to get more and more expensive and consume maintenance resources (and pilot training) that could otherwise be directed to the Super Hornets and F-35s.

Frankly I'm kind of glad someone took them off our hands before they became even more of a liability. We've got enough on our plate dealing with the F-35's corrosion issues (most of the fleet will be kept in moist salt air at Williamtown and be plugged into big dehumidifiers when not flying) and other things like its limited range.[2]

Which, now I put it that way, makes me wonder if maybe we should have kept a few Hornets.

[1] "43. The F/A-18A/B Hornet was designed for a safe life of 6000 airframe hours. At the current fleet flying rate of 13 000 hours per year, reducing to 12 000 from 2013–14, there is capacity on that basis for the Hornet fleet to continue flying until the end of 2020." https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/management-au...

[2]https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/projecting-power-with-the-...

Re: A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

#339

Post by o-__-o »

HideousKojima wrote: post #242
jessaustin wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the purpose of the Navy, just like all the rest of USA armed forces. They haven't won a war in my parents' lifetimes, but just think of all the trillions of dollars that have gone to armaments manufacturers!

We lost to Grenada?

How did we lose to Grenada?

Re: A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

#340

Post by andromeduck »

minikites wrote: post #315
StillBored wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there was the killdozer guy, who did just that with what was basically a homemade tank. Which in a way proves that a sufficiently motivated individual isn't going to be stopped by silly laws against owning this stuff.

Why have laws at all then?

Laws are for making certian undesirable strategies/behavior uneconomical and therefore less enticing to those who would otherwise commit them by making the resulting situation less attractive.

For example right now there is nothing stopping you from just grabbing a paring knife and stabbing/killing a random person on the street but you sure as hell aren't going put yourself in a better situation having done so.

Post reply on HN