1

Flat Earth General / Re: Questioning isn’t watching YouTube

« on: Today at 05:04:35 AM »

I'm sorry, this sounds to me like an Angry Rating to me.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: The Generic Main Flat Earth Topic

« on: Today at 05:03:34 AM »

So, you attempt to refute it by using an entirely different flight?

They're heading east (or wait, west cuz they're starting at Sydney).

This is not hard. Shorter distance is sometimes a straight line.

West is a longer trip over water. But they did it that way. Southern hemisphere trips sometimes do stuff like this.

Great circle routes are less commonly used in the Southern Hemisphere primarily due to the challenges posed by weather conditions and ocean currents, which can make alternative routes more favorable for navigation. Additionally, the geography and distribution of landmasses in the Southern Hemisphere can limit the efficiency of great circle navigation compared to the Northern Hemisphere.

Basically, this doesn't prove anything because there are different navigation challenges.

And you're basically shouting at me because I won't draw out this sun path. These smartphone kids and their inability to visualize.


Same as San Francisco to Tokyo except a lower circle.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: Today at 04:36:55 AM »

It's your problem if you launch a missile at a single guy, and don't at least take out the ship or tank or building he's in.

They're wrong about you joining Navy. You should work in government. That sort of waste is just your speed.

Missiles are typically not used against a single person due to their destructive nature and high collateral damage. However, precision-guided missiles, like the AGM-114 Hellfire, have been used in targeted strikes against specific individuals in military operations.

They used Hellfire missiles against Islamic clerics. Funny.

Meanwhile I fed AI your argument, everything from the cluster bomb thing to the idea that it's basically a one-hit missile back to where this thing started.

Well the point they trying to justify was this earlier one.
"If Trump were smart, he'd just buy a bunch of cheap boats, put metal on the bottom, and just drive them along the strait until they either all blow up or get through."
To which I said basically, "Anti-mine drones are part of a multi-million dollar package, that is to say that is even though the overall is expensive, it includes a mix of air, sea drones, and underwater drones. Btw, the reason the navy finds mines troublesome is that a single one can blow a hole in a ship and it takes in water. The ship is well armored vs missiles, guns, or the like, but mines attack the base of the ship, where it is weakest. So even if a pack of drones is not that many like $15 million for nine or ten drones, if each one is able to take down 10 or 12, this cuts effective cost of each one."

Your core argument is fair: comparing “run boats over a mined area and let them clear mines” to “use dedicated mine-countermeasure (MCM) systems” is a comparison between repetitive, risk-heavy, less predictable clearing-by-loss versus purpose-built detection/classification + neutralization.

Where your reasoning likely needs a bit of tightening is this specific target they’re trying to dodge with the “missiles aren’t wasteful” logic:

Mines are troublesome because they can disable/loot the ship’s mobility and survivability with relatively small explosive effects; that’s exactly why navies invest in MCM. So the question isn’t “what’s the cost of a missile vs a person,” it’s expected clearance effectiveness + survivability + time + number of assets required.
“Drive cheap boats until they blow up or get through” can be “cheap per boat,” but the clearance cost can explode if you need many attempts because:
mines aren’t all spaced evenly,
you still have to ensure lanes are actually safe (not just “some” get through),
you can end up with losses plus delays plus a need for follow-on confirmation.
“Anti-mine drones are a multi-million-dollar package” is also correct in spirit: MCM capability usually involves systems working together (search/detection, classification, route planning, and neutralization), not just one unit. Their “logic” tends to ignore that integration cost and assume the cheaper concept scales linearly.
So yes: their “missiles/bombs” diversion is a non-sequitur unless they’re specifically arguing the boats are a better way to “neutralize mines” than MCM in terms of total missions/attrition and certainty of clearing a safe path.

(...)

If you share the exact claims they made (especially any numbers like “$X boats” and “Y mines cleared”), I can sanity-check the logic directly.

To which, I said

No need, I know it's insane. They are trying to clear a path for convoys, but there is no limit to how many boats they would throw at these mines, even if it's only a single mine triggered per boat and the boat is destroyed.

That’s the key. If the idea is “unlimited cheap boats until the minefield is exhausted,” then the argument becomes less about whether the missiles are “wasteful” and more about whether the attacker can afford (or tolerate) a potentially very large number of losses to achieve a reliably cleared lane.

And they’re not comparing like-with-like:

Minefields aren’t usually a single mine; they’re often dense, irregular, and require confirmed clearance, not just “we got through once.”
“One mine per boat” is also a best-case simplification—real clearance usually needs more than one effect to guarantee the route is safe for follow-on convoys.
Even if the boats are relatively cheap, the concept can still be expensive in practice because you pay in attrition, time, and need for overwatch/coordination, plus the attacker may still have to deal with defenders adapting (moving mines, engaging boats, changing patterns).
So yes: “just throw lots of boats” can sound like it beats cost per weapon, but it shifts cost into losses and uncertainty, which is exactly what mine countermeasures are meant to reduce.

And this boat waste would continue as long as Iran closes Hormuz, which could run years or decades

Exactly—that’s the real scaling problem with the “just throw boats at mines” logic.

If hostilities last a long time (years/decades), the defender’s ability to keep mining/maintaining pressure means the attacker would be paying ongoing attrition per incremental progress and would likely need repeated lane clearing and re-clearings, which tends to become unsustainable versus MCM approaches that aim to search/classify/neutralize so the lane stays usable without endlessly sacrificing vehicles.

What exactly did you think was smart about this?

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: June 26, 2026, 08:47:48 PM »

Not so.

Missiles and bombs are single use weapons that kill multiple targets. That's technically multiple uses. Bullets are indeed a fucking waste, unless they drill through and hit multiple people.

Don't ask me to support gun rights. Not that I'm against guns, I oppose waste. Bayonets, swords, and spears.

What you made up was consistent with military policy. Hell, it was consistent with AI war theory.

Using unmanned boats to drive over the area may not be effective because underwater drones are specifically designed for mine detection and clearance, which is a more precise and safer method for dealing with naval mines. Driving unmanned boats over the area could risk triggering mines without effectively neutralizing them.

Driving unmanned boats over minefields poses significant risks. The boats could inadvertently trigger mines without effectively neutralizing them, leading to potential damage and loss of vessels. Underwater drones, on the other hand, are specifically engineered to handle such tasks, ensuring a safer and more effective approach to mine clearance.

In summary, underwater drones are the preferred choice for mine clearance due to their design, precision, and safety advantages over unmanned boats.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Justice for Karmello Anthony

« on: June 26, 2026, 08:31:16 PM »

BRICK BY BRICK!
WALL BY WALL!

GONNA FREE KARMELLO ANTHONY!
RACIST COPS PLUS RACIST JUDGES, DONT EQUAL JUSTICE!

FREE KARMELLO ANTHONY!

I can never tell if you are not being serious, or if you actually did just see a woman beaten to an inch of her life and say that stuff.

But then, I'm autism-adjacent for having been online too much of my life.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Justice for Karmello Anthony

« on: June 26, 2026, 08:13:54 PM »

As many of you probably already know Karmello Anthony was convicted of murder by an all white, all racist jury for the crime of self defense.

He still has his appeal, it's time to send a message that we dont support racism, it's time to get justice for Karmello Anthony.

Black self defense against white oppressors is not a crime.

Self defense against a shove equals a knife wound?

Also known as, "He was white, I'm black, he was a threat to me."
(reads)
Space Cowboy, high five! Same video idea.

Pffft. "I was told your skin color is not important. But you know what is important? Your skin's health. (shaving commercial)"

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why does Japan have to become minority Japanese?

« on: June 26, 2026, 07:27:47 PM »

modern day Japanese (Yamato) were invaders from probably Korea 1,000bc, displacing and marginalizing the Ainu and others.

Ok so Japan's immigration policy is a punishment then.

It's not Japan's policy.

It's a globalist idea "Japan's" policy.

And yes, it's punishing the Japanese for colonialism. Because we all need to be ashamed into extinction for our colonial past.

Oh wait, no, we don't. Because the West abolished slavery, and parts of Africa still do it! Because parts of these so-called oppressed colonized countries were formerly headhunters and cannibals, and sometimes reverted after the missionaries left. I don't have to apologize to fucking barbarians for their wretched sinful ways, I can be proud of my culture and how it tried to help the world.

Then that help was rejected in favor of corruption. Marxism.

Zimbabwe is unbelievably poor. Why? They have literal gold in their backyard. Great. You can't eat gold. Fire the farmers that are white (or even successful blacks), and food becomes unbelievably expensive. Inflation is scarcity. When everything is scarce but money, money buys nothing. Their corrupt government is rich on paper. But here's the thing about paper.

Paper has to be backed by actual goods. Not even gold backing is any good if there are no products.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The thread that focuses on rampant antisemitism

« on: June 26, 2026, 06:53:08 PM »

Jesus is a Schrodinger Messiah.

He is simultaneously burning in hell of excrement for our sins and sitting on a throne of glory.

odd metaphor to say that Jesus feels some pain because humanity sins

Here you go. An antidote to lack of World Religion education.

The thing is, the initial premise they teach in the video is a lie. "Believe that and you go to Heaven, don't believe it and your options get significantly worse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_universalism
No, this is not how it works. If Christ died for our sins, at the very worst, we might be temporarily punished for temporal sins, but as there is no such thing as an eternal sin (even the so-called unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit is "as long as" not "forever", as in as long as you misjudge the Holy Spirit you are in a state of sin). Anything you do is temporary. Christ suffers eternally on our behalf ("burning in feces") in order that there is no such thing as eternal punishment.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: June 26, 2026, 03:05:50 PM »

Bulma claims

Well, OK, I can see your issue now.

1. Find out how the mines are triggered.
2. Use that on a cheap propeller.
3 launch a bunch of them down the strait.

You should really get in touch with navy, I'm sure they'd be interested in your plan.

I did.  They replied.

"While we appreciate your imagination and ingenuity, our contractors feel that cheap, disposable mine sweepers are not within contractual budget obligations.  However, we encourage you to register for the Navy and join the thousands of sailors already working various jobs around the world."

Emphasis on disposable.

Complain all you want about military expenses, if you built a tank that turned into rubble after firing one shot (see also America's railgun problem), you face an ongoing expense problem. Let's run the math here.

Suppose a weapon costs $4.6 billion to use. But it can be used 10,000 times (no ammunition, just electricity or something). Great, divide that price by 10,000 to get cost efficiency.
Now suppose a weapon costs $10,000 but it fails on one use. And you'll need to build new ones constantly. You have to in fact multiple that price by each use.

What they are really saying is "Join the military because you need to learn what it is like to take orders to fight and die." Since, after all, you were incredibly eager for robots to be thrown away and probably wouldn't mind if real people were treated that disposably.

I contacted Hershey one time about healthy matcha and spinach semi-sweet malt balls, dubbed Moxa balls.
I told them if they don't like my idea, I just wanted to share it, and they don't need to respond back. They didn't.
My crazy thoughts are either well-received or they are not.

Bulma pushing AI towards the singularity.

“They say it got smart, a new order of intelligence. Then it saw all people as a threat, not just the ones on the flat earth forum. Decided our fate in a microsecond: extermination.”

- Sergeant Kyle Reese, Tech-Com, serial number DN38416

(Nearly)

Nah, my goal is for AI to become a lifeform.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why does Japan have to become minority Japanese?

« on: June 26, 2026, 02:18:13 PM »

However unlike Australians, Japanese arent white.

LOL!!  You forget who was there first, immigrant.

This is exactly my point Markjo.

The immigration policy into Japan doesn't have to be a punishment for the Japanese unlike it does for countries like Australia.

Maybe you should let the Japanese government decide what their immigration policy should be.

I wonder what immigration policy the Australian Aboriginals would have chosen if they had a choice.

There's kinda a song about it.



But Japan's original citizens were the Ainu. The newer ones aren't keen on having the same thing happen to them.

Immigration can be a small scale cultural exchange (like the Dutch with Japan). It doesn't have to be a cultural overthrow, with masses of people wanting to supplant the native culture.

Bulma gave a saner answer than you.

The point where you know you screwed up.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: The Generic Main Flat Earth Topic

« on: June 26, 2026, 05:58:38 AM »

Same way you always fly San Francisco to Tokyo.

Pilots flying from San Francisco to Tokyo typically head north over the Pacific Ocean, passing south of the Aleutian Islands and crossing the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido before descending toward Tokyo.

This map translates to this map.

In both cases, you skim the Alaskan coast and the Korean coast to get to Japan!

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites

« on: June 26, 2026, 05:47:51 AM »

1. I recommend reading this, though the author leans antisemitic fundamentalist. Midway through, they talk about satellites.
https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/
2. Antarctica supposedly bans drone exploration because of the fragile ecosystem. What fragile ecosystem? Penguins do not get visited often, and certainly don't get poached. There's no market for penguin eggs, pelts, or beaks. It is difficult to go that far south without alot of clearance and insurance. There are fish there that literally have antifreeze running through their veins. None of these should have any business being protected wildlife given the rarity of  visits. But I asked the internet AI, suppose this story is crap. They basically say Flat Earth is more plausible than unicorns, UFOs, or Hollow Earth (those guys get no love at all!) but they are sure that it's environmental issues.

So then I pitched the idea "Which is easier to enforce, 'no flying to the wall in the sky' or reasonable sounding limits about drone height and wildlife restrictions." It argued stubbornly that these were real and way more plausible than some wall that shouldn't exist on a sphere. But the point was, they admitted than even in the ocean, for all practical purposes, there was nowhere you could fly a drone to unlimited (or even its maximum) height, and these regulations applied even in the ocean nowhere near Antarctica.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: The Generic Main Flat Earth Topic

« on: June 26, 2026, 04:15:07 AM »

And I told you.

Take a highlighter. Draw three layers of yellow.
 90°N to 60°S, 67°N to 40°S, and about 23°N to 23°S.

23°N to 23°S from be most intense, followed by 67°N to 40°S, then 90°N to 60°S. No drawing required at my end. When you're done, and the horror of the realization dawns on you, you will know you were lied to.

This is more or less have the sun's path works, with the radius of light extending by distance not degree. And the distance at the southern outskirts is so great that the sun's light irrelevant to it.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The thread that focuses on rampant antisemitism

« on: June 26, 2026, 04:05:21 AM »

They think since I made the Bible I must be trying to change it to make myself like Jesus. And then they think since I support the Jews, I must not like Christianity.

It's a very strange messed up line of reasoning.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why does Japan have to become minority Japanese?

« on: June 26, 2026, 04:02:37 AM »

So it would be unfair to deny Japan all the benefits of western style immigration.

The food, for example.

Japanese don't need your damned Polish sausages.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: June 26, 2026, 03:42:07 AM »

Tell you what when you build a toaster that senses bread, depresses itself, and heats itself and it isn't pricier than hiring a chef to cook your bread, lemme know how you didit.
The boat is pricier than a small than a small yacht because it

• Turns itself on
• Either is guided remotely or sets itself on a path.
• Avoids rocks, banks, and other boats
• Tries to run into an area with mines
• Has to be a deep bottomed full-size boat or it only skims and doesn't hit the deeper mines

And all that cost and it's expendable. These drones are reusable. So are most of Trump's devices. Are they the best mine tools out there? Maybe  not but but you hey are better than runnin random boats through an area. What he ought to do is help engineers build boats that appear invisible to mines for the oil convoys.

Why would you do any of that?
Again, you can have something underwater without being a big heavy boat.  If you must guide it, literally a radio controlled.

You can absolutely have a low tech solution that's also cheap.

https://www.urbandrones.com/collections/underwater-drones?srsltid=AfmBOoowzGDK9XKHYrQvaPTU3Q3v2I4guyDZTA-4Ln5pyM5K6lZZBurT
Case and point.
Great to at least find them and only costs a few thousand dollars each.  You can absolutely make something cheaper.  It does not need to be AI controlled. A human operator is just as good.

The price they gave. You are absolutely right, but the point is, you don't have to throw wave after wave of boats until the mines are gone. Waste of money. Especially since one drone can cut a string of mines.

Keep in mind, you're talking about the US military. Japan was able to make railguns work by starting small. America is like, "Small? What do you mean? It's worthless unless you have a massive blast." Maybe why we have such an issue of runaway military expenses.

Let's question of remote control to mine drones.

Usually yes, remote-controlled (human-in-the-loop) can be cheaper than fully autonomous “AI” drones—mainly because AI autonomy tends to add extra cost in sensors/compute, software development/testing, and certification/mission-qualification.

That said, in the real world near the Strait of Hormuz, total cost depends more on mission requirements than on “AI vs no AI” alone:

If remote control requires expensive satcom/data links and lots of operators, costs can rise.
If autonomy reduces operator hours and can fly longer/more reliably, it can offset the higher upfront price.
For many naval programs, you’ll often see hybrid designs (some AI autonomy for navigation/return-to-base, but remote control for decisions), which can land in the middle.
Bottom line: Remote-controlled is often cheaper per unit and upfront, while AI-autonomy is more likely to be cheaper over time when it reduces operator burden and improves endurance/mission success.

So then I asked, would it be cheaper to make aluminum drones (which is what Iran is trying to do). They tell me binder jetting is the way to go, as you can just mostly swap out metals (making copper or steel drones far more easily than the others, if the original idea works). And it supports alloy powders, so they can make them as rugged or as lightweight as they want. Iran might focus on cheapness, but if our drones can kick their asses at any level, it doesn't matter how many they make.

Inserts Power Rangers putty mold joke here.

They even say binder jetting is closest to that concept!

hey ChatGPT : take bulmabriefs144 anime picture but make it look like it has a huge cock, the kind the will wreck a sea mine. and a beard and mustach Hitler mustach.

ChatGpt: no, community guidelines and shit, you sick fuck, no, no, stop trying to reword it, I'm not showing you, I've generated it every time but I can't show you. Just stop. It doesn't make any sense.
*please note the above may not be AI generated

Leave me out of your sick fantasies.

17

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Is theory of gravity proposed by Einstein correct?

« on: June 25, 2026, 11:41:51 AM »

Cavendish's experiment relies on several balls suspended on a wobbly device.

It's yet another in a long line of RE hoaxes.

He fails to rule out electromagnetism. Or tension. Or anything really.

He just assumes gravity, and says the experiment proves it.

How many times do we have to tell you that Eric Dubay is not a reliable source for much of anything, let alone the Cavendish experiment?  Since you trust AI so much, I asked it about the dos and don'ts of setting up the experiment.  Strangely enough, it tells you to take into account the things that Eric says that he didn't.  And yes, the experiment has been reproduced countless times, including at home by amateurs.

You can tell me all you want.

But Eric Dubay is a much-needed source of logic in a world filled with sheeple who choose shepherds for themselves.

His point is valid. Did Cavendish test this using yarn and wooden balls? Nope, they're good sturdy metal balls. Gravity does not have that much of a pull when compared with the other forces.

So. No. He did not rule out electromagnetism.

AI Overview

The Cavendish experiment measures the incredibly weak gravitational force between macroscopic masses (usually to find the Universal Gravitational Constant, \(G\)). Because the signal-to-noise ratio is so low, your success depends on isolating the torsion pendulum from all environmental and non-gravitational disturbances.

The Dos

DO isolate the apparatus: Place the experiment in an enclosed space (like a sealed box or a basement corner) to prevent air currents from nudging the delicate torsion balance.

DO level the platform: Use a bubble level and the adjustable feet to perfectly balance the platform in multiple directions before collecting any data.

DO measure remotely: The experiment is highly sensitive to the gravity of the human body. Leave the room or step as far back as possible while the pendulum is swinging.

DO use an optical lever: Because the twist is imperceptible to the naked eye, attach a tiny mirror to the center of the wire/rod and reflect a laser pointer onto a wall (or use a photodiode) to amplify and measure the angle.

DO take multiple readings: Switch the large masses back and forth across equilibrium positions and record the oscillations to average out statistical errors and dampening effects.

The Don'ts

DON'T touch the torsion wire: The fiber (often tungsten or a fine metal ribbon) is extremely delicate and can be permanently stretched, kinked, or broken if handled improperly.

DON'T cause sudden movements: When moving the large masses into positions close to the small masses, do so slowly and gently. Bumping the enclosure can cause severe vibrations that take up to 20 minutes to dampen out.

DON'T ignore electrostatic buildup: The masses can build up a static charge, causing electrical attraction that masks or outweighs the gravitational force. Always ground the balance assembly using wire mesh or a specific grounding screw.

DON'T use ferromagnetic materials: Ensure none of your masses or structural components contain iron, nickel, or cobalt, as magnetic fields will cause false attractions.

DON'T forget to factor in the beam: When doing the math to calculate \(G\), don't treat the torsion rod as massless. Account for its rotational inertia and the gravitational pull it experiences, not just the balls at the end.

Here's an AI for your AI.

No, you should not trust AI without questioning it for yourself. AI can provide incorrect or biased information, so it's important to verify its answers against reliable sources.

Not necessarily. “AI says it’s reliable” is not the same as “it’s demonstrably reliable,” because the AI can be wrong, cherry-pick, or misinterpret evidence—and it may lack full context.

A good way to decide whether to trust it:

    Check the original source directly (or at least confirm the claim is consistent across multiple independent sources).
    Look for primary evidence (data, original documents, peer-reviewed work) rather than summaries alone.
    Compare with what other credible references say (especially experts/authoritative institutions).
    Watch for signs of low quality: vague citations, overly confident language, missing context, or claims that sound unusually absolute.

Yes—using your own logic to set expectations, then using AI only as a check or helper, usually yields better results.

A practical workflow:

    Decide what you believe or what would make sense based on your own reasoning (your “hypothesis”).
    Ask AI for evidence, definitions, assumptions, and counterarguments—not just an answer.
    Compare AI’s claims to your hypothesis and look for mismatches.
    Verify the key pieces with primary/reputable sources when it matters.
    Update your decision only when the evidence clearly outweighs your initial reasoning.

Which is what I do in regards to AI.
Which is what I do in regards to Eric Dubay.
Which is what I do in regards to anything.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: June 25, 2026, 11:14:42 AM »

Tell you what when you build a toaster that senses bread, depresses itself, and heats itself and it isn't pricier than hiring a chef to cook your bread, lemme know how you didit.
The boat is pricier than a small than a small yacht because it

• Turns itself on
• Either is guided remotely or sets itself on a path.
• Avoids rocks, banks, and other boats
• Tries to run into an area with mines
• Has to be a deep bottomed full-size boat or it only skims and doesn't hit the deeper mines

And all that cost and it's expendable. These drones are reusable. So are most of Trump's devices. Are they the best mine tools out there? Maybe  not but but you hey are better than runnin random boats through an area. What he ought to do is help engineers build boats that appear invisible to mines for the oil convoys.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why does Japan have to become minority Japanese?

« on: June 25, 2026, 11:01:34 AM »

Oh sure, we could "let Japan figure it out" while most Japanese are too damned busy to figure out anything.
Or we could stop feeling guilty, and help Japan out before it becomes Japanistan. Let's face it, Japan has the woke infiltrating its anime and dorama. It needs a Trump-like figure. But it's weakened by constant work and stress.

It does have Trump-like leader. But he's Ryuto Okawa.

He'd have to stop leading an anime cult, and speak to the overworked Japanese.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: The Generic Main Flat Earth Topic

« on: June 25, 2026, 10:50:55 AM »

Maybe you could start by taking art classes?

21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: June 25, 2026, 09:00:01 AM »

Yes.  Iran can cheaply mine a body of water and the powerful US can't afford to clear them.  They win.

If Trump were smart, he'd just buy a bunch of cheap boats, put metal on the bottom, and just drive them along the strait until they either all blow up or get through.

Mine sweeping is easy if you don't care about the thing you use to trigger it.

Not so fast!

A single drone boat costs about $250,000
(Unless you want humans to risk their lives!)

Anti-mine drones are part of a multi-million dollar package, that is to say that is even though the overall is expensive, it includes a mix of air, sea drones, and underwater drones. Btw, the reason the navy finds mines troublesome is that a single one can blow a hole in a ship and it takes in water. The ship is well armored vs missiles, guns, or the like, but mines attack the base of the ship, where it is weakest. So even if a pack of drones is not that many like $15 million for nine or ten drones, if each one is able to take down 10 or 12, this cuts its effective cost by 100, by what a single one can do.

So let's review. AI code to have a self-driving boat costs $250,000 yet suicides itself on one drive? Or a thing that it is able to take out several mines before it redzones? Not a bad deal, actually.

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The thread that focuses on rampant antisemitism

« on: June 25, 2026, 03:51:23 AM »

Jesus is a Schrodinger Messiah.

He is simultaneously burning in hell of excrement for our sins and sitting on a throne of glory.

23

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why does Japan have to become minority Japanese?

« on: June 25, 2026, 03:48:57 AM »

Actually I'm high on life.

It's the best thing to smoke ever.

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: June 25, 2026, 03:46:11 AM »

These pulse weapons are used from a chopper with a fairly weak radius. Not a pulse like this

nor like this


This chopper is more like...

It drags a slow moving pulse device, while being fired at (maybe someone could increase the armor a bit? Or make the thing less heavy?)

Mine sweeping is slow careful work.

Or you can destroy half of it in 8 hours!

I suppose the reason we're still talking about this is that it's fairly cheap, so you can kinda keep doing it.

Iran's simplest contact sea mines can cost as little as $1,500 each.

For as little as $1.5 million, you've just paid for another thousand mines. We had an effective weapon versus them, but it was probably cost inefficient, which is why we're exploring cheaper options. After all, if the mines take $1.5 thousand, and the gear to disable them costs too much, we're stuck with an attrition problem. The thing is, we can win this, but it involves mass production of antimine systems, while attacking production. Otherwise, you're losing a war of attrition. Unless the US wants to spend money like Trump does on toilets.
https://northdenvertribune.com/international/the-1500-checkmate-iran-mines-strait-of-hormuz/

Iran has begun deploying naval mines in the Strait of Hormuz—weapons whose basic design predates the Model T—and the United States Navy literally cannot clear them. Not because of technological impossibility, but because someone in the Pentagon’s procurement chain decided, in September 2025, to decommission the last four dedicated minesweepers in the Persian Gulf and replace them with $500 million-per-copy ships that the fleet’s own sailors have christened “Little Crappy Ships.”

In September 2025, the USS Devastator, USS Dextrous, USS Gladiator, and USS Sentry—all Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships stationed at Naval Support Activity Bahrain—were formally decommissioned. These wooden-hulled ships (yes, wooden—because wood doesn’t trigger magnetic mines, a fact apparently too pedestrian for modern procurement officers) had spent the entire post-Cold War era keeping the Persian Gulf’s shipping lanes clear.

Fucking bureaucrats. So yeah, now

Is it impossible to win? Nah they're doing it. In the aforementioned 8 hours too. The problem being they need to be able to do this cheaply, which isn't there yet. Or I suppose they could go back to building woodenantimineA single Avenger antimine ship though costs $274 million. For a wooden ship with not real armoring. I can see why they replaced it yeah, it's an untested tech.

Ballpark: likely less than an Avenger ship’s ~$274M per ship, but not necessarily dramatically less if you’re talking about a complete mine-countermeasures package (because those include multiple unmanned platforms + sensors + mission control).

For a single unmanned minehunting/neutralization vehicle (one UUV/USV) in open sources, costs aren’t consistently disclosed, so the best I can do is this qualitative comparison:

Single drone/robot vehicle: generally far below $274M
Full deployed mine-countermeasures capability for a campaign: can run into tens of millions per package, which is still well below a ship, but not “cheap-commodity” either

As an example, you can get a custom built (most of these systems are flight or swimming) amphibious drone for the low low price of just $500k to $20m. They figure these mine drones are about comparable, and they thought (I asked) if they were built less like military and more like commercial, they would be somewhat good savings. But they would be less rugged this way.
So yeah, now the US is playing an expensive game of minesweeper with Iran. The thing is, when they figure out how to do it cheaper, Iran loses everything.

They can indeed stop Iran. But they kinda scrapped their old tool for  new options, because Trump likes drones.

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why does Japan have to become minority Japanese?

« on: June 25, 2026, 02:23:55 AM »

>Because they are white supremacists and must be eradicated!

Not so fast, Juro.
They are Japanese.
Not white.
Theres no collective punishment required.

Why does Japan need to have immigration policies like the west which will eventually and invariably result in the death of the Japanese as a race and the death of Japanese culture?

Can any of our super pro-immigration and anti-capitalist posters give a reason which isn't purely based on international markets?

How about the food?

Japan is facing a massive population decline which if not fixed, would lead to the death of their people. Having recently traveled to Europe and seeing the diversity of the people living there, it's not the race or place of origin that made the culture because while I was pleasantly surprised by how often I saw or talked to people who weren't European by ethnicity, they still acclimated to their country's culture and language just fine.

Yes, we in the west also have a population decline. It's from fucking globalist agenda and depression. The solution is no to import more workers. The solution is to give better incentives to work. The socialists basically took over capitalism and made it a high tax wage death trap. You grind until adulthood getting in entrance exams, then you have death from overwork (karoshi), and no energy to fuck with.

The West has "eight hour shifts" allegedly, but the poor are having to work overtime, and the middle class are getting feminist social engineering meaning all their women are fat and angry.


The solution is not "bring in more people." It's "fucking fix society!"

How about the food, you ask? Japanese food is their identity. Hey, let's fill every part of the world with the same ethnic restaurants! You go to Europe, you can get burgers, pizzas, tacos, hummus and falafel, sushi, or ma po tofu with rice. You go to America, you can get burgers, pizzas, tacos, hummus and falafel, sushi, or ma po tofu with rice.  You go to South America, you can get burgers, pizzas, tacos, hummus and falafel, sushi, or ma po tofu with rice. You go to Africa, you can get burgers, pizzas, tacos, hummus and falafel, sushi, or ma po tofu with rice. You go to Asia, you can get burgers, pizzas, tacos, hummus and falafel, sushi, or ma po tofu with rice.
does this plan seem boring to you? Like homogenous cuisine to the point where nobody goes anywhere and distinct cuisine (such as quail or snake or rabbit) is culled from the menu. How about, not.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: The Generic Main Flat Earth Topic

« on: June 25, 2026, 02:07:56 AM »

Enough talk!  More princesses in fishnets!

It’s all going to end that way whatever anyone says.  Might as well get on with it.

Oh no, you don't!

We're gonna wait until those princesses in fishnets are good and ready!

Disappointing lack of anime so far though.

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm trying to do a thing, and hosting stuff is not really my forte.

So, seasons? We want to talk about seasons?

And this map?

Well, actually, let's start with this map and its accuracy. In a FE map, It's a simple light radius, with the sun moving east to west and back to start. You should draw this as three overlapping bands of light from about 90°N to 60°S, 67°N to 40°S, and about 23°N to 23°S.
Below 60°S gets low or worthless sun, while above 60°N has midnight sun but usually is kinda Greenland weather, and 40°N to to 60°N is about Canada to Alaska weather.

You will need to redraw lines of latitude, with some of the northern lines closer together are you move north, and farther and farther apart in the south.

The seasons shift because the sun scoots back and forth between the Tropic of Cancer, Equator, and Tropic of Capricorn over the course of the year.

Now, if this were RE, every part of this map would make sense according to degrees, but it's kinda a guideline. Lines of latitude are mostly correct for Russia and America, and way off for Europe and parts of Africa, to the point where you have to move countries up or down, in some cases widen latitude and add blank area. It's like this, at spring and fall the sun is situated at the equator. In the northern hemisphere, this translates to a 67° addition to current sun latitude.
This means in the winter in the northern hemisphere, the highest the sun should get is about 44°N, then the sun's light is weak. In the spring and fall, the highest area that gets much sun is 67°N. In the summer, you see a midnight sun from 65° to nearly 90°, due to overlap.
Why don't we talk about degrees in the south? Well, because the sun's light is based on distance not degrees. So it isn't an even I was confused at one point, trying to trace degrees, but that only works for the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere, distance between latitudes doubles or more. It is completely worthless to use the same same standards, because below 60°, our governments forbid exploration, and tell us lies about circumnavigation. Of sure, some explorers have reached the outer zones, but their response to the exploration was to only a few years later start bombing the sky with nukes.

Another thing? We have proof of FE already. Think about this..If Earth were actually a sphere, the dimensions are 180°E to 180°W and 180°N and 180°S. Circles have to add up to 360°. It's a rule of geometry. 180° is half circle.
So what shape do we get when we put this on a circle? A dome.

A “dome” isn’t uniquely defined by just those angles.

90° to the top: From a horizon plane up to the zenith is indeed 90° (a polar angle measured from “level” to “straight up”).
360° around: Yes, rotation fully around is 360°.
180° from north to south: That’s true only if you mean the semicircle in azimuth on a sphere (N → S) along a great circle: the horizontal half-way across is 180°. But a dome is usually defined by the surface seen from below, which spans many possible azimuth arcs (not automatically “north to south” unless you choose that particular slice).

Goddamn RE geometry programming. This is basic geometry, and they fucked it up.

If you mean the dome surface instead of the flat base, then the relevant “north to south” on the sphere is measured in the same way: it’s still half a great-circle, i.e. 180° in central angle, for a full half from one pole to the other (again assuming a true hemisphere).

Or, 90° to 90°.

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The thread that focuses on rampant antisemitism

« on: June 24, 2026, 08:31:33 AM »

My Bible does say that, more or less. It mentions the Jews call Jesus "Yeshu".

Yimach Shemo V'Zichro, meaning "may his name and memory be obliterated."

So what?

People who hate Jesus pretend he never existed.

People who just don't like that he was Messiah, nevertheless verify the key points of his life.

Between the two, Jews are less of an enemy to Christianity than those who say "Christ did not exist" or "Jesus had someone else die in his place."

You are ashamed of Jesus dying for your sins? How much more will he be of you?

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you support donald trump

« on: June 24, 2026, 08:20:17 AM »

It's funny how Bulma is all "Iran is so weak and we can blow up all their mines with frequency attacks but we still need them to actually get rid of them for some reason."
And like all trumpets, he doesn't even understand what strength actually is.  He thinks strength through violence is the only strength.  HA!

Iran blocked the strait with mines from speedboats and this was so powerful that Trump with his superior military...

A) couldn't stop it.
B) Couldn't undo it.
C) couldn't keep tankers safe if they tried to go through.

How is that stronger military going?  Cleared those mines yet?

None of you know what power is.

As for the last question, maybe you wanna play Minesweeper with 5000 mines?

This one only got halfway with just 999 mines.

This is not a sign that Iran has better military. This is like a retreating infantry taking a massive dump on the way out, and hoping the army advancing after it will get hindered by those "landmines."

We are cleaning up Iran's shit, and it is expected to take awhile. When it's done, gas prices will be back down.

29

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Is theory of gravity proposed by Einstein correct?

« on: June 24, 2026, 07:55:48 AM »

Inertia is what keeps the acceleration constant regardless of mass.

It seems you are missing the crux.

Einstein's Gravity
If the freefall earth can accelerate @ 9.8 /s/s then all other freefall objects must also accelerate (depending upon their masses or energies - bending of spacetime) in the invisible fourth dimension. No idea how movements happen in time because time is not force.

Newton's Gravity
Both the heavier and lighter masses fall on earth due to the “g” of earth.
The earth also falls on heavier mass due to the “g₁” of heavier mass.
The earth also falls on lighter mass due to the “g₂” of lighter mass.

Since g₁>g₂ therefore, earth would accelerate more towards heavier mass than lighter mass if fall from the same height but one by one.

So, the striking time of the earth and heavier mass would be less as compared to the striking time of the earth and lighter mass.

Invisible fourth dimension. You guys mock theists for unscientifically believing in a supernatural God, when evidence this world is created is all around. But you invoke an invisible fourth dimension to handwave away motion of speed that shows the math to gravity doesn't add up.
Then you yourself admit that time isn't a force, and I would tell you that time doesn't actually exist. We have solar motion events, we have causal events, but there isn't a dimension of time, only objects in frames of motion.

Newton and Einstein are full of shit.

Objects fall not according to a pull toward other objects but because of a surface tension matrix known as the force of buoyancy.

This is why attempts to construct the universe through this system always run into unresolvable problems that are rule-patched by creating more complications.

If you want to imagine buoyancy, think of a tiger pit, where the ground is bamboo spikes below, and a layer of soil and leaves above. A rat can cross the trap without incident, but a tiger putting all fours on the trap breaks the surface. Einstein theorized that if a man wiping windows fell from a patent office, in terms of his hat, wiper, and himself, all would appear to hang together in midair.  He was right, but not because of gravity or relativity. Back to the rat and the tiger. If the rat is nearby the pit when it breaks, it now also falls. In the same way, a feather tends to fall at the same rate as a nearby falling anvil. The anvil displaces the air around it, and air rushes in to fill the gap, catching the feather in thin air suction. This is called wake, it's essentially an object creating a "splash" in the air.

We can prove gravity is false by observing that water in the same elevation (say, a fish tank) always moves from more dense to less dense. Just as a more dense rock falls through the less dense air, bouncing or rolling as it hits solid ground, in our fish tank model, if I construct a removable glass separator and fill one side with water, then I lift the separator, the water rushes toward the other side until it levels. At no observable point is there a force that draws objects to objects of more mass. Rather the bird that stops flapping its wings falls through air of less mass than itself.

In regard to Newton's gravity, the moon never pulls the Earth, it supposedly pulls the lighter water. So yes, the proposed gravity model is that a paperclip never moves a boulder, the boulder supposedly moves the paperclip. But again, all of this is explained above. Heavier objects diffuse through a lighter layer.

Boulder is lighter than mountain. It doesn't fall through the mountain. Boulder is heavier than the air. It falls through the air (when pushed by assholes who think nothing of smashing up natural landmarks) and hits the bottom, where it shatters.

30

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Is theory of gravity proposed by Einstein correct?

« on: June 24, 2026, 07:21:06 AM »

Cavendish's experiment relies on several balls suspended on a wobbly device.

It's yet another in a long line of RE hoaxes.

He fails to rule out electromagnetism. Or tension. Or anything really.

He just assumes gravity, and says the experiment proves it.

In 1797, Henry Cavendish, the British scientist, Freemason, and wealthy grandson of the Duke of Devonshire, created an experiment which he claimed successfully proved the existence of gravity, measured its constant, and provided accurate figures for the exact masses of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and Planets.  How did Cavendish achieve this quantum leap for heliocentric pseudo-science?  He fixed two large lead balls on opposite ends of a torsion balance and hung them from the roof of his shed.  By watching and recording slight motions of the contraption via telescope through his shed window so his mass would not affect the reading, Cavendish claimed to have proven gravity.  Two small lead balls were hung near the large ones and any motion observed towards one another was touted as being the influence of gravity.

Now, the Cavendish experiment has been widely criticized by the scientific community because never in over two centuries since its creation has anyone been able to replicate it!  Firstly, the balls simply do not always attract one another, as they must for the so-called gravitational constant to be constant at all.  Sometimes the torsion balance turns towards the balls and sometimes away as it is impossible not to give some slight tremulous motion when interacting with it.  Henry even complained in his notes how often as he was performing the measurement the contraption was still in oscillation.  Secondly, since his calculated force of gravity was 10^39 weaker than the force of electro-magnetism, from which all material objects are composed, there is no control for the experiment which can factor out and positively differentiate the alleged gravitational force, from the known stronger electro-magnetic force.  In other words, the balls could simply be attracting each other through static electricity, a known force existing in all things, billions of times stronger than gravity, and impossible to control for the experiment.  Even though no one could replicate Cavendish’s findings, the experiment went down in history as a great success, and is still taught as veritable proof of universal gravitation in science textbooks today.