Shocking? Not to me, nor to anyone else who has been paying attention for the past 50 years.
I should try to arrange this for piano. It seems bouncy and cute without requiring too much fleet-fingeredness, and a nice thing to toss out if there’s a piano around.
If anything can be said to be off-topic here:
He’s right. They are garbage for three reasons, and these are only the three that first spring to my mind. There’s more, you can bet on it.
- They’ll fail. The places on the human body that fail most often are major load-bearing mechanical joints: knees, hips, ankles, lower back. Same for anything mechanical. Congratulations. By strapping on one of these things, you’ve just doubled the number of potential failure points. Now, there’s two ways your knee can get fucked up.
- They will cause injuries. For things like this, they must be so closely fitted as to be practically bespoke for every single person who uses them, and they will probably still cause pressure sores and friction injuries that are vectors for infection in the field, particularly when the people wearing then will probably be moving their joints and bodies in every conceivable direction. Give a guy one of these stupid things and ask him to carry 300lb of shit through the forest, and he’s going to wear it for three hours, then take it off and schlep the shit through the forest in two goes of 150lbs each, plus his feet are now bleeding. Except for lack of ammo, nothing fucks up a soldier’s effectiveness more than unhappy feet, and if he’s lucky, it’s only his feet that are bleeding. And if he loses his footing for one millisecond and slips on a patch of mud while carrying that 300lb load, woe be to his body and soul.
- The rocket fuel paradox. When sending heavy materials into space, one of the things that needs to be accounted for is that the fuel itself weighs something. Send up something heavier, and you need to put more fuel in, and then you need to put even more fuel in to lift the additional weight of the added fuel, and so on. If a guy is already carrying 150lb of shit through the forest, strapping more shit to him is not solving the problem.
The solutions are as follows, two of which have been points of issue since the Peloponnesian Wars, and one of which is new:
- Think ahead. You need to know what you’re asking your people to do, and don’t bring more than you need. Sure, it’s nice to imagine that you can bring everything you own with you on every single road trip, but you can’t. You have to think ahead and bring what you’re most likely to need, and then trust your people to improvise when needed, which is the whole point of putting human brains in the field in the first place.
- Better equipment. The stuff they are carrying needs to be lighter, more powerful, more multipurpose, and longer-lasting. Period. You can’t exoskeleton your way out of designing your shit properly.
- Drones. Where by “drones” I mean ways of carrying stuff into the field that is basically an exoskeleton minus the guy inside of it — just autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles (ground or air) that will schlep the crap for you, or drop it ahead so it’s waiting for the people when they get there.
Although even the thing that’s new (drones) might not really be new when you consider war mules being basically the Bronze Age version of this creepy-ass thing, except mules actually work. Plus, they east the same food the people do, and some stuff the people can’t — including things that grow right out of the ground. Gasoline doesn’t grow out of the ground. The thing would spend most of its effort carrying its own fuel. At that point, why bring it?
There you go. I’m afraid that super-sexy videogame Japanese manga cartoon technology will not solve these problems. Military exoskeletons are bad news. They exacerbate the problem they are meant to solve and bring a bunch more problems along with them. No amount of sexy junk will keep us from having to think ahead, design better equipment, and use tactical drops.
People really need to stop getting their ideas on military technology from Japanese comic books.
I’d like to take the heads of every single stupid little white hipster girl who said that there was no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and that there was no inherent value to having a woman president and bang them together until their eyeballs rattle in their skulls:
Look, this old lady doesn’t even have a uterus anymore, so if the idiot girlies and middle-school arrested development biddies who do have them don’t fucking care, why should I?
You wanted to vote Bernie to make your hipster boyfriend like you? You wanted to vote Trump because That Bitch Thinks She’s Better Than Me? You voted in a manner that told the whole world that men matter more? Then suffer the consequences. You made your choice. Live with it.
Because our bodies contain a magic portal to a dimension where human consciousness is created and then pushed into this universe. That’s why we are punished — because our bodies contain magic.
Oh so Men’s Bodies Make Life, Too? Then get in the goddamned shed, pal. And you can stay there until you show me your episiotomy scar.
This guy’s whole schpiel makes me want to punch the air, but it makes me want to punch a few other things as well.
Because if we were truly able to look at talent, we would not only have a more balanced gender ratio at the top, but we would find that women actually outnumber men at the top.
Except that women would then rip the women at the top into tiny pieces, and we’d end up right back where we began. Rinse, repeat, for one million years.
Misogyny is the fault of women as much as it is men.
Why do so many incompetent men win at work?: A new book suggests data can highlight modest, team-focused leaders of both sexes
One common narrative holds that women are held back by a lack of confidence, yet studies show this to be a fallacy. Perhaps it would be better to say that they are less likely to overrate themselves. The book cites one study from Columbia University which found that men overstated their maths ability by 30% and women by 15%.
It is also the case, he writes, that women are penalised for appearing confident: “Their mistakes are judged more harshly and remembered longer. Their behaviour is scrutinised more carefully and their colleagues are less likely to share vital information with them. When women speak, they’re more likely to be interrupted or ignored.”
When we lean in, we get penalized — and we damned well know it. Telling us to step on a land mine that is uniquely designed to blow only our legs off is insane.
Besides, why am I being advised to mimic the attitude of an incompetent fool to get ahead? I’m not an incompetent fool. I’m not going to act like one.
Written by a man, I hasten to add. Multiple money quotes. The whole article is basically one giant money quote:
The truth of the matter is that pretty much anywhere in the world men tend to think that they that are much smarter than women. Yet arrogance and overconfidence are inversely related to leadership talent — the ability to build and maintain high-performing teams, and to inspire followers to set aside their selfish agendas in order to work for the common interest of the group.
The paradoxical implication is that the same psychological characteristics that enable male managers to rise to the top of the corporate or political ladder are actually responsible for their downfall. In other words, what it takes to get the job is not just different from, but also the reverse of, what it takes to do the job well.
So it struck me as a little odd that so much of the recent debate over getting women to “lean in” has focused on getting them to adopt more of these dysfunctional leadership traits. Yes, these are the people we often choose as our leaders — but should they be?
There are not enough yeps in the world for this. I’ve always, always, always said that men are not smarter, they are just wrong first loudest — and this is called “leadership skills.”