Onomatopoeia

joined 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

They too are paradoxical and inconsistent.

Study QED a bit. It all makes no sense. That's not a complaint, just recognizing that nature is absurdly complex.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 hours ago

Important note: Type 2...which is largely caused by diet

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

No one wants the ugliness of a war over NK, but everyone wants their natural resources, estimated to be one of the largest deposit of minerals in the world.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

And this goes back to the Cold War, which goes back to WWII, and the politics of the president and military commanders, specifically MacArthur, who wanted to continue north and take North Korea decisively to keep the Soviet Union and China from controlling it before it could be reinforced by Chinese soldiers.

At the time, North Korean soldiers were outnumbered by UN forces 3:1, with far more tanks, etc than NK had.

The UN waffled, and by the time they decided Korea should be reunified, China had shipped in nearly 300,000 troops, and an unknown amount of matériel.

Fuck the UN. It's their fault this is still going on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

I've fired 45 and 50 cal pistols, they have quite a kick. It's pretty interesting to go to a range and start with a 32, then 38, 9mm, 40, 45, and then 50.

40 isn't much more kick than 9mm (for one round - shoot a few and you notice the difference), but 45 is noticeably more, and 50 is, as they say, "a freakin' hand cannon", in a much heavier/longer gun to boot.

So a double 45 would probably be more kick than a 50, though I'd have to look up some numbers and do a little math, keeping in mind a small increase in kinetic energy translates into noticeably more kick as your hand/arm have to control peak acceleration/momentum.

So it would be every bit double the energy of a 45, in the same grip, so would likely feel a lot worse.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

I can only imagine what firing that would be like.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Hahahahaha, damn you!!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Dog is not permitted on sofa.

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

Plus not having to conform to .999 uptimes makes a huge difference.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

That's incredible

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Had a friend apply, he passed the test but didn't get hired because he scored too well in certain areas (he's too independent a thinker).

Would've been a very good cop, doesn't react to being goaded, or to stresses, great negotiator, physically in great shape and a big dude.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I've never had any youtube subscription.

Why would I pay for that garbage?

Glad you got away from it.

15
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Totally off the wall question, which I realize probably isn't very meaningful, but I was watching a movie where a character was using a suppressed rifle. Looked like an AR/.223 (I assume).

Well it got me thinking - how much can a given gun be suppressed (decibel reduction) before performance is significantly reduced (I assume it must impact performance, even if just a little since it's attenuating sound waves, which are energy, but what do I know?).

I'm sure it varies by round/load, barrel length, etc, so let's assume a subsonic .223 round in a 14" barrel (is that a common lenth?). Or if you know a specific case that's fine too.

Surely there are reasons why a given suppressor is chosen for a specific use case, and I don't know enough to see that (diminishing returns for length/weight?)

I tried asking chatgpt, but it just returned generic suppressor info.

view more: next ›