Water- it's amazing what it does for life.

But if I seal you in a tank and start filling it with water, you're not going to be very excited about how amazing it is in very short order.

There are a few asterisks needed to make that claim true, but with those asterisks it is- and I do agree that's not a great look for us.
The GFS is generally inferior to the IFS. These are both global models.
The HRRR and NAM have no analogues- and the IFS doesn't come anywhere close to doing what they do, so it's not accurate to say that "The European Model is more accurate for US Weather.".
It is more accurate than the GFS for US weather- that much is true. But US forecasts aren't using the GFS.

You've reached that time in your life where someone explains to you how the national debt works. We'll ignore the coupon for simplicity's sake.

US needs $100.
They print a bond. They sell that bond. Someone buys that bond at auction.
The US gets $100 in its treasury, $100 in debt, and someone just traded $100 for a new asset worth $100.

The US is funded by the rich, the public in general, and foreign governments. But mostly the rich.

Huh? Wrong about what?

Oh I'd say it far predates that, lol... but that's also entirely irrelevant.

That link doesn't say what you dream that it says. You're projecting a weird fantasy.
Better red than dem is a decade old, now.
MAGA voters are very pro-Russia, and a healthy enough amount of independents simply aren't as virulently anti-Russia as in past times.

You have very passionate partisan opinions. It's too bad. It makes you dumb.

You seem to be swinging furiously at a strawman.
Do you feel like you sufficiently wounded it?

I'm not here to defend Trump.
The point was, for those hard of reading, the position of fucking the Ukrainians is the popular position.
Trump's feckless incompetence is entirely orthogonal to that.

You know which above I was speaking of.

Nobody- I agree. Unless they were stupid enough to directly attack US assets in the area, which I don't think they are.

Nope.
Not over an island, that's for sure.

He's intelligent but lacks experience. His is pattern indicates, two dimensional thinking.

The PLA Navy grows because it still lags far behind in terms of technology, interception, and standoff attack capabilities.
If the PLA Navy were a peer force, they wouldn't be growing so fast. They're trying to make up for their shortcomings in the way they know how- build, build, build.

Unfortunately, a tank can run over an effectively infinite amount of ants.
Shipbuilding is a labor-intense market. It makes sense for China to do most commerical shipbuilding.
They didn't build the USS Gerald R. Ford- the United States did.
The Fujian is is neat... I guess? For something built in the 1960s?

Intel did it much worse than AMD, and about the same as IBM in terms of vulnerability and performance impact of mitigation.

Core 2 was pretty decent, that's fair. But by the time the i7 came around AMD was kicking their ass at everything but single thread. Even though I am a gamer that's never been the only thing I cared about, and I've also always been cheap, so to have AMD provide dramatically more ops per buck and have very competitive processors which were outright faster in many situations has had me an AMD customer solidly since Athlon. AMD never was able to keep up with Intel's process technology, but by the time that ceased to be a thing, all Intel had left was inertia and skullduggery.

My last non-netbook Intel-based system that I bought with my own money (I had an Elitebook with a Core 2 Duo for a moment) was a P2 400 because AMD has kicked Intel right in the goodies in the market segments I care about since right around then. Only Hammer has even been slightly disappointing since Athlon, and it was still an absolute value for money champ.

Absolutely! It's how I distinguish myself from people who can read, and like you- not.

The higher you get, the less busy you are. It's an ironic thing about how the world works.
When you move up from fryer-jockey, you'll start to get it.

But seriously- have you figured out the difference between 10 and 100 yet? Asking for a friend.

It turns out there's still no evidence that he was ever shot.

Complete bullshit.
A carrier group can swat ballistics and anti-ship birds out of the air all day long while sipping tea on the decks, and in this regard, China isn't particularly advanced.

Was the question whether or not the US could deploy its Navy right now at the coast of China and succeed? I don't recall ever making that claim... but that being said, US standoff weaponry alone could likely sink just about all of the Chinese fleet without ever coming within visual range of it.

The South China Sea is quite literally encircled by US naval bases.

They ran out of missiles. They then proceeded to shoot the fucking things out of the sky with good old fashioned guns. Not a single drone hit its mark. Let that sink in.
That wasn't even a prepared US defensive array. That was just teh shit the Gulf boats had on hand.

For me, it started when someone claimed tonnage was a useful comparator between navies in 2025.

Well, may be apt. Frankly, there really isn't any guarantee the PLA navy ever reaches parity with the US navy in capability.

No, it is not.
It is in a symmetrical comparison. There is no symmetrical comparison between the US and any other power on the planet, currently.

Like where it says:
As a result, as discussed in further detail in Appendix A, comparisons of the total numbers of ships in China’s navy and the U.S. Navy (or aggregate displacements) are highly problematic as a means of assessing relative U.S. and PLA naval capabilities and how those capabilities compare to the missions assigned to the two navies.

One day, a tonnage comparison with China will be apt. Today is not that day.

No, I'm saying that if you zoom in far enough on any exponential curve, it looks linear.
The exponential curve is defined by the constant growth of the output. It is nonsensical to say "the linear component..." when growth is universally positive.

1) There is no linear component. The curve is exponential. GHG growth is not in a fixed number of Gt per year, it's in a percentage of the whole.
2) Nobody ever claimed that the doubling period was 10 years, or some shit, but this is really just more finger wagging at you for selecting a part where the curve looked flat.
3) Nothing happened 50 years ago. That's how exponential growth works.

Wrong.
All the dinghies in the world don't take down a carrier group with CIWS, cruise, and theater ballistic missiles, regardless of tonnage or numbers.

This is bullshit.
Drones are useful for picking on someone who can't defend themselves, nothing more.