Or here it is in plainer math. He said that the $10k he makes on 4th of July is 10% of his total income. That means that:

10 = 10% x TOTAL

Solve for TOTAL:

10 = 0.10 x TOTAL

10 ÷ 0.10 = TOTAL

10 ÷ 1/10 = TOTAL

10 x 10 = TOTAL

100 = TOTAL

Seriously?

Let's say I do a thing some number of times a day.

I tell you I did ten of that thing just before breakfast, and that that was 10% of the number that I did all day.

How many did I do in the entire day?

You're the moron, or at least illiterate. They said that on one day, the 4th of July, they make $10k, and that that's 10% of their annual income. That means that their total annual income must be $100k, because $10k is 10% of $100k. That leaves $90k to be made over the course of the rest of the year, about $7.5k per month, which is plenty to keep the lights on and rent paid until the next 4th of July.

Life is 2nd grade. Or perhaps "Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten"?

Adults are merely conditioned and learn to ACT "mature," under the masks and habits we are all children... Psychology focuses so much on childhood for good reason.

Humans will avoid negative stimulation; it's natural behavior. If you have too much freedom and always have positive options you will avoid negative things ALL THE TIME. This will result in a lack of contrast which is necessary for your mind to function since just about everything you think is relative interpretation. What you end up with is a "wimp" who experiences just as much pain and suffering from a pin prick as a physically abused person does when being hospitalized.

People so fragile they commit suicide because of anonymous insults posted against them online... People so fragile they can be controlled by minor fears and name calling--- and most threatening, people being made incompetent citizens by being unable to face the bad news necessary for them to participate in their democracy.

They will be able to detect many substances and do statistics on those. You might test off for drugs if you have a lot of money or handled a lot of money-- assuming you would leave your wallet out of the machine as one does at the airport -- if you handled a lot of money you'd get the extra treatment... in which case wash your hands before you go thru it; then you'll probably fit within the normal levels (assuming they calibrate the machine properly-- so many people use plastic that cash users will stand out from the average person.)

I'm sure that some law will prohibit forcing people to have their recent diet tested to be a passenger... but pilots etc will not and this could make drug/alcohol tests CHEAP and commonplace. No more blowing into a tube which has to be sanitized each time-- you just breath in a general direction!

Passive tests could be done without you knowing - there are evil uses for this. Making you wait in a long hall way for your interview for a job... they could charge the bench or the floor and use the security cameras... You could be ruled out for the job without knowing it was because of your medication (it's not like HR would buy the most accurate machines.) No, you CAN be discharged without a big shock so you wouldn't suspect it.

P.S. F-22 is highly likely going to be better for close air support than F-35. That in spite of having no such capability. Because there is no way for F-35 to have any close air support capability due to its extreme fragility, high minimum air speed and complete lack of ability to loiter.

Project to add attack functionality to F-22 fleet existed, and would have been (and likely still is) far cheaper and more productive than creating a new fighter. That will now apparently cost almost as much as F-22 on top of it. Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen are viable options as well.

As for "you will never get funding", that is a US POLITICAL choice. The fact remains that CHOICE exists. It's that politicians choose not to exercise that choice for political reasons in one NATO country. Considering that F-35 program has a lot of donors from the countries that are not US, and that without those the project would likely be scrapped as costs would jump further, this is pretty much purely a political problem. Not even a choice, but an actual problem, because many countries paid for F-35 without tenders.

And eventually, it seems that people who made those decisions will be called to answer why, at which point it's fairly likely that we'll have massive corruption trials and jail time for politicians, as well as collapse of the project.

I fixed a dozen of them for my high school when I was a student there. I had them all running together. Fun times! The shocks don't really hurt much; I kind of liked it... avoiding puns...

Discharging can be done in ways that don't feel so bad, as the parent alluded to... I'm sure the HS mall cops will enjoy watching people jump who don't follow directions (and purposely being unclear with people they do not like.)

Now if HS put just a fraction of that wasted money on naked scanners and molesting children... They could still waste $$$ for contracted devices but these actually work and have to cost significantly less. (Hey, the pedo job is 1 more salaried position for people who don't want naked photos of themselves taken; so it's not cheap either.)

Marines and UK need replacement for Harrier. That means STOVL or full VTOL. At the moment, the only aircraft that meets the requirements is the Harrier and the barely flying version of F-35B as well as Soviet Yak-38 which is no longer in service and cancelled Yak-141 which is the aircraft from which Lockheed Martin licensed the STOVL system from.

Can you please keep your micropolitical bullshit to yourself? This is an adult discussion about real issues.

Again, the "F-35 is the only game in town" clame is a bold faced lie. NATO countries currently operate the following 4.5/5th gen fighter/attack aircraft:
F-22
Rafale
Eurofighter
Gripen

We are spoiled for choice. This is definitely not about that.

In a fight with "real adversary" by your definition, F-35 is the single worst choice of all aircraft, barring downgrade to F-4 or similar, due to its extreme cost. Ignoring the MAD aspect of the issue, if you're facing a massed assault of decent air superiority aircraft in a shitty fighter that has barely any missiles and only frontal stealth, you're dead.

Current fleet at least has a chance because there's enough of air superiority aircraft that have decent to good performance.

And again, you appear to be ignoring the fact that F-35 is a terrible attack aircraft even if we pretend for a moment that Lockheed Martin isn't advertising it as a fighter. Attack aircraft's primary role requires it to have decent operational range and payload. F-35 has neither without external hard points.

And no offence, but in modern world, enemy will know you're coming. Political conflicts that result in massive conflagration between two major states are affairs that take months to appear. And once that happens, spy satellites AWACS aircraft and strategic search radars kick in. Stealth provides little protection from those, you will be spotted. It will only provide protection from fire control radars which cannot get a proper lock due to sensory deprivation, and considering the questionable stealth that F-35 has in the first place and the fact that Russians operate MiG-31s which will be locking on it from above rather than below, F-35 is still pretty much the worst choice.

Why not? US is currently Russia, largely due to complete halt of develpment and massive brain drain after the fall of Soviet Union. That suggests that US has at least ten to fifteen years of head start. If you go into details, Russians probably still lead on aerodynamics and engines or are about even due to two decades of lost development. US has a massive lead in its traditional advantages of logistics, production and avionics.

US most definitely has the time to develop something else. That argument is quite ridiculous.

The main argument here is cancellation of F-35 program because of structural failures of the program mentioned above, and usage of F-35 development to create three separate aircraft for each branch (carrier based fighter/bomber, airforce strike focused fighter bomber and marines STOVL strike focused fighter/bomber).

This would also solve the problem with Lockheed Martin becoming an effective monopoly for future fighter production in US as tenders could be given to separate companies.

Entering? Yes. Reading and managing with numbers? No. You seem to think that the only costs with data management are entering. That's just ridiculous.

I'm not going to even bother with the rest of your argument, which amounts to "spreadsheet bad for everything, world is wrong in choosing it, I stand alone as a warrior for just cause". Good luck with that.

I think your other part where you are grossly misinformed is where you think that stealth is end goal. It's not. It's merely a means to an end, and end goal of stealth is immunity to radar guided missile's targeting system.

Electronic warfare aircraft are means to that very same goal, that are proven to be about as efficient as stealth but take the exact opposite path to tackle the problem - instead of sensory deprivation of stealth, they use sensory overload instead. This approach has significant benefit over stealth in that this approach allows EW aircraft to provide same benefits to entire fleet of allied aircraft. That's how downright ancient Panavia Tornadoes and older, traditionally vulnerable to SAM aircraft like F-15Es and F-16 were able to operate in Libya in spite of heavy SAM presence across the region.

EW aircraft are basically a cheaper, more efficient means to solve the problem that stealth attempts to solve. They are more efficient because they don't just cover stealth aircraft, but they cover all aircraft in the fleet. This solves the massive problem that US discovered it had in Iraq war - few stealth aircraft and too many targets to hit them with, while a lot of older, functional aircraft that couldn't penetrate air defenses and couldn't be used.
This is what was solved in Libya.