Why I'm in the Army Reserve – an explainer for my friends in tech • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I'm in the Army Reserve – an explainer for my friends in tech

#601

Post by Handytinge » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 1:09 AM UTC

qiskit wrote: post #242

jpgvm wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not meant literally. Even in Australia our armed forces are still "Royal" but this is just a vestige of the past. i.e our ships are designated Her Majesty's Australian Ship (HMAS). What is means in practice is they fight for their country and its allies, just like any other military. While technically the Queen's representative in Australia (the Governor-General) is the chief of Australias armed forces (as defin…

Then don't say it period. Also, isn't the british queen still the head of state of australia? Every time I bring this up, it's always australians, canadians, british, etc making excuses.

> Every time I bring this up, it's always australians, canadians, british, etc making excuses.

Or, Australians, Canadians, British etc _explaining_ the nuance to you, because they understand it?

Re: Why I'm in the Army Reserve – an explainer for my friends in tech

#602

Post by analognoise » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 7:52 PM UTC

YATA1 wrote: post #599

analognoise wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...that actually supports my point though? Facts don't care about feelings, but this doesn't support your point at all.

>...that actually supports my point though? It actually doesn't. >Facts don't care about feelings, but this doesn't support your point at all. It 100% supports the OPs point: lower classes are underrepresented. Upper classes are overrepresented. QED.

You're talking about a society with HIGHER wealth inequality than right before the French Revolution, and you're defining "upper class" as anything above 60-odd K - an amount that would not allow you to rent a two bedroom apartment...almost anywhere in the USA.

It... Doesn't support your point at all?

Here's the Wall Street Journal saying the quiet part out loud:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-debt-relief-payment-pau...

"If young Americans can access free college without having to earn the GI Bill or sign up for follow-on military service, will they volunteer for the armed forces in adequate numbers?"

It's really hard to say "rich people are overrepresented" and then "who will sign up if we make college free" in the same breath.

Re: Why I'm in the Army Reserve – an explainer for my friends in tech

#603

Post by Breza » Sat, Apr 16, 2022, 8:44 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #505

edgyquant wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah, what’s it supposed to do rebuild all that infrastructure and institutional knowledge?

Not at all. But that's why they're not going to go through a crazy ramp up period. It's also what happened when the Air Force split off the Army, which is why the Air Force has generals.

In addition to every other rank

Re: Why I'm in the Army Reserve – an explainer for my friends in tech

#604

Post by tekknik » Sun, Apr 17, 2022, 6:47 AM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #584

CobaltFire wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are absolutely open to criticism; my point is you don't even know WHAT to criticize. Your entire argument is predicated on a flawed understanding of what we do and the resources we have to do it. Note that I'm not saying we are perfect (or even close), and there are so many things we could do better I could write a book, but you are moving goalposts rather than addressing the points I brought up. The plain and sim…

> my point is you don't even know WHAT to criticize. Yeah, sure. That's what I'm responding to with all the stats. The nice thing about numbers is that they are fungible. Anybody can read a chart and tell you the US military is really bad at workplace safety, whether or not there is a war going on. It's a bit like the US police force. You can show a bunch of figures to a LEO, and the figures for law enforcement in th…

That was a lot of scrolling for a lot of nothing. Do you have anything to say or just filling space?

Re: Why I'm in the Army Reserve – an explainer for my friends in tech

#605

Post by tekknik » Sun, Apr 17, 2022, 6:49 AM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #569

notadev wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what you wrote makes perfect sense and I could get behind not caring so much about some standards for some positions. What would you propose for the support jobs like “Culinary Specialists” or “Logistics Specialists”?

My thinking is that a peacetime military is basically a skeleton that needs to be able to be rapidly fleshed out when it becomes necessary. That's not exactly a novel thought, but I think there's a lot of room to explore when you stop thinking about fighting wars, and start thinking about how to build the machine that builds an army (preferably within weeks) if a war breaks out. European countries can be quite good a…

At this point you are just trying to force fit your ideals to the real world. Please stop, you clearly don’t understand. the original post i made is clear, make your army hard. or lose your country. maybe you’re russian…

Re: Why I'm in the Army Reserve – an explainer for my friends in tech

#606

Post by YATA1 » Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 11:19 PM UTC

analognoise wrote: post #602

YATA1 wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...that actually supports my point though? It actually doesn't. >Facts don't care about feelings, but this doesn't support your point at all. It 100% supports the OPs point: lower classes are underrepresented. Upper classes are overrepresented. QED.

You're talking about a society with HIGHER wealth inequality than right before the French Revolution, and you're defining "upper class" as anything above 60-odd K - an amount that would not allow you to rent a two bedroom apartment...almost anywhere in the USA. It... Doesn't support your point at all? Here's the Wall Street Journal saying the quiet part out loud: https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-debt-relief-payme…

>You're talking about a society with HIGHER wealth inequality than right before the French Revolution

Immaterial. The class definitions are in quantiles which means proportional per capita. The facts of the matter is the lower classes are underrepresented, the upper classes are overrepresented.

QED.

>and you're defining "upper class" as anything above 60-odd K - an amount that would not allow you to rent a two bedroom apartment...almost anywhere in the USA.

"Upper classes", as in, the top quantile of classes. $60k (2007 numbers) would allow you to rent a two bedroom in almost everywhere in the USA, except the most expensive areas (in 2007). Not everyone is making $300k combined. Your SV bias is showing.

>It... Doesn't support your point at all?

It... 100% supports my point absolutely.

>Here's the Wall Street Journal

Paywalled opinion piece.

>saying the quiet part out loud:

Leftist shibboleth. Not that I'm surprised, but reddit is that way.

>It's really hard to say "rich people are overrepresented" and then "who will sign up if we make college free" in the same breath.

Yeah... Because it's an opinion piece from a random contributer that similarly fell for the fake news. Poor Americans are not joining the military in disproportionately higher numbers to pay for college and what have you. That is a fact. If college becomes free, the military can raise pay and sign on bonuses, add other programs, etc. They'll find a way, no doubt.

Re: Why I'm in the Army Reserve – an explainer for my friends in tech

#607

Post by analognoise » Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 7:57 PM UTC

YATA1 wrote: post #606

analognoise wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about a society with HIGHER wealth inequality than right before the French Revolution, and you're defining "upper class" as anything above 60-odd K - an amount that would not allow you to rent a two bedroom apartment...almost anywhere in the USA. It... Doesn't support your point at all? Here's the Wall Street Journal saying the quiet part out loud: https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-debt-relief-payme…

>You're talking about a society with HIGHER wealth inequality than right before the French Revolution Immaterial. The class definitions are in quantiles which means proportional per capita. The facts of the matter is the lower classes are underrepresented, the upper classes are overrepresented. QED. >and you're defining "upper class" as anything above 60-odd K - an amount that would not allow you to rent a two bedroo…

"The class definitions are in quantiles which means proportional per capita. "

Yes - hence the problem with income inequality in the numbers.

The "upper quartile" is so low, it includes people making 60k a year.

More granularity in your numbers would show that actually wealthy people don't sign up.

It looks like you're using statistics to lie. It's pretty clear that "wealthy people are overrepresented" is only true if you do things like, define "rich" starting at 60k.

Re: Why I'm in the Army Reserve – an explainer for my friends in tech

#608

Post by YATA1 » Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 8:10 PM UTC

analognoise wrote: post #607

YATA1 wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You're talking about a society with HIGHER wealth inequality than right before the French Revolution Immaterial. The class definitions are in quantiles which means proportional per capita. The facts of the matter is the lower classes are underrepresented, the upper classes are overrepresented. QED. >and you're defining "upper class" as anything above 60-odd K - an amount that would not allow you to rent a two bedroo…

"The class definitions are in quantiles which means proportional per capita. " Yes - hence the problem with income inequality in the numbers. The "upper quartile" is so low, it includes people making 60k a year. More granularity in your numbers would show that actually wealthy people don't sign up. It looks like you're using statistics to lie. It's pretty clear that "wealthy people are overrepresented" is only true i…

>Yes - hence the problem with income inequality in the numbers.

Immaterial. You're just announcing to the world that you don't know how "per capita", census tracts, or quantiles work.

>The "upper quartile" is so low, it includes people making 60k a year.

Because that's the facts for the median income of the census tract.

During 2009–2013, Beverly Hills had a median household income of $86,141 as an example.

Pacific Heights has a median household income of $125,550 per year.

>More granularity in your numbers would show that actually wealthy people don't sign up.

It would show the complete opposite, as it shows with the quintiles now.

>It looks like you're using statistics to lie.

No. I'm using statistical FACTS to tell the truth. It's an inconvenient truth that shatters the narrative and the fake news the left has been spewing on this topic for decades, but it's still the truth.

The fact that you just can't handle the truth shows how bad you've been subverted.

>It's pretty clear that "wealthy people are overrepresented"

Of course it's clear, that is reality.

>only true if you do things like, define "rich" starting at 60k.

The upper quintile for census tract median income starts there. You want to deny statistical fact because it goes against the narrative.

The statistics show clearly that the lower classes (lowest quintile) are underrepresented. Poor people do not serve as much as the upper classes (top quintile) do. QED.