Of course not, it seems a rare thing that politicians are chose based on knowledge or merit. Spewing bullcrap, shitting money, kissing rings, those are all great ways to become a politician, but they are horrible ways to direct and manage policy and insulates those people from how the world actually functions. And the only punishment for doing an absolutely horrible job is they MIGHT have to find another job years down the road.
I mean what makes a ddos service legitimate? Plus security is an endless cat and mouse game and asking the cat what the best way to catch a mouse is may not reveal the same information as asking the mouse how they evade the cat.
I don't see how these style of drone like aircraft could possibly be better for personnel or gear transport over a collective rotor helicopter. A bigger rotor is more efficient, can lift more, and can autorotate to a safe landing after taking the inevitable battle damage and losing power.
I mean I could be wrong, im certainly not an expert in future military design and strategy, but I just don't see any advantages once you start scaling these to the size needed to move humans. The only potential I can see is multi-rotor designs being easier to learn to pilot over a collective rotor design, but I don't see any modern military considering a few weeks off a pilot's training being worth the trade off in range, capacity, and safety.
People making $50K a year are not dropping $200 to save even 2 hours of time, not to mention 15 minutes. Even if they paid zero taxes $200 is an entire working persons day at $50K a year.
I don't see how unions cause any of those problems. Corruption and incompetence comes through administration and management not the average worker wanting a decent pay and 2 weeks of vacation.
NYC unions are not your average worker. In my north of NYC town the labor rate for a union worker is 3x that of non union..and state laws mandate govt projects must pay that rate.
Well they use to be, this last generation seemed break even in hardware cost around release. But with hardware supply issues now that may not be true at this moment still.
Well presumably they are paying well, but the competition wasn't hard to beat. The guy complaining about losing workers was only pay 20 bucks an hour for workers that have to own and supply their own tools and holding a trade license and holding some personal liability for their work because of the license. At that wage just a 2-3 dollar difference, or the potential for overtime pay, would make most workers jump ship. As trade workers they live boom-bust cycles and gotta make that money when they can.
Tanks and planes require logistics and people. You don't shoot at the tanks directly, you shoot at the people loading them, or the refinery towers that fuel them, or the people that have to eventually get out of them.
What are they going to do, level factories and skyscrapers when their logistics are threatened thus destroying their own logistics and economy that is supporting them? An insurgency is not like a nation state war, it is asymettrical warfare where even telling who the enemy is is incredibly difficult and many exist among your own personnel.
> What are they going to do, level factories and skyscrapers when their logistics are threatened thus destroying their own logistics
They've already got planes and tanks. They can also be strategic about what they target, protecting what's important to them while targeting what's important to the population. The people flying the planes and drones won't have homes in the communities they bomb. Our government has already opened fire on Americans, already dropped bombs on American cities. Like I said though, how well they'd do in a revolt is theoretical. What isn't theoretical is the failure of the 2nd amendment to protect our freedoms.
Why wouldn't you? There are moving vehicles everywhere. If a drone who's weight is measured in grams is a problem being near moving vehicles, what do you think about 200 pounds of person and bicycle riding around moving vehicles?
It doesn't help that in many cases, even the "better" choice in candidate lies considerable amounts along with people and party that support them.
It's not like we got the Truth Party versus the Liar Party, Its more like "Lies a bit more often party" and "Lies a bit less party" because both sides know propaganda works and uses it. And when you add in social biases there are enough lies to go around for either starting position to point at their perceived opposition party and proclaim them untrustworthy. Only a fraction of people are going to put in more effort to discern what is truth and keep track of who lies more and what lies are bigger or not, the rest decided to bandwagon along with their aligned "friends" as soon as they started getting confused by deception on both sides.
Also I don't think US political parties and politicians align well with the US population to start with. If someone disagrees with what 80% of what one party does, and 70% of what the other part does, their only choices are to pick a party they inherently disagree with slightly less or not vote. People who say out loud they think both parties are garbage are often shut down by people on both sides like they are planted opposition and shuns anyone who dares not give full support and backing all the time.
reply