this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
972 points (96.0% liked)

Comic Strips

12949 readers
2644 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Frequently those problems could be solved for the cost of a single aircraft.

idk about this one, idk much about canada, but water infrastructure is more complicated than just "here's some money" and there's also the inevitable governmental over spending problem that seems to encroach everything.

it's also worth noting that we're comparing two irrelevant things here, it's like me comparing the worlds loudest yell to the sound of an f35 flying at altitude. Yeah they're comparable to each other. In the sense that they both make noise.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You'd be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)

I was actually basing my complaint on the comparitive cost of the B-2 stealth bomber, and the (at the time) cost of repairing the ogalala aquifer, estimated to cost about the same as the 2 billion dollar aircraft.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You’d be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)

oh cool we're just fucking, lying now. That's the sound level of the f35 at altitude.

"F-35 produces 115 db at ground level, on take-off"

"F-35 at minimum (cruising) power at 1,000 feet was 103 db"

"F-35 at 121 db at 1,000 ft, and 500 mph"

(https://www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org/noise-level-comparisons-f-35-and-other-aircraft/ ripped from here if you're wondering)

btw just for the record, talking about excessive cost of the f35 is extremely redundant. It has an incredibly high R&D cost but that's literally because it's the most technologically capable plane ever built. Over time given enough production and a probably 50 years of service, it will shrink in comparison.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

1000 feet is beneath the typical hard floor for domestic operations, and practically right on top of you. You've never seen one beneath 5000 feet unless you went to an air show, more likely than not they're operating 12,000 feet or higher. I'm wondering if you actually know what "at altitude" means?

You also "ummmmm ACHTUALLY'd" your way right on past the point entirely. So congratulations on not only creating an idiotic straw man but also falling to grasp the concept of what we're even talking about.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet.

to be clear, i wasn't the one that made that comparison. Naturally you can fly planes at altitudes other than one specific number, that seems to be a feature of most planes.

i believe generally, in the space of planes, the ones that fly in the sky, not the mathematical ones. It refers to an operating altitude. However, i was using it to refer to that specific altitude. "operational altitude" for something like a military jet is not going to be specifically defined, compared to something like, a boeing 737 for example. There is likely to be a maxmimum operational altitude, naturally. Planes need air to fly through, obviously. But that's irrelevant here, we're talking about the ground.