Thanks for the detailed info. Guess my impression was wrong. Interesting overall. With humans being so exposed to the small fpv drones, it would seem their role in combat should be greatly reduced. Or it is heading toward WWI trench warefare style. Some kind of drone hardened bunker to hold the line, but no real way to advance. Though those bunkers would be much harder to set up than the trenchs were. So the lines will end up being much farther apart. Seems like ground invasions will be out of style for a while. Interesting stuff overall. Sad that human lives are involved.

Got any source for those numbers. I am fine with being wrong, but my impression from things I have read was that they were focused on drones that hit targets farther away. And that human targeting drones were the lesser of the production focus. The stuff I read talked about fiber optic cable for controlling the smaller ones becuase the jamming was too good. But it took a lot of cable. And each one required a circuit board and all that. The electronics were the harder to get part, so a bigger drone made better use of it. But like I said, I could have gotten the wrong impression.

Right, but I thought you were saying we would see these things to the posts drones that can follow humans through the forest, not the general drones for hitting nonhuman targets.

I’m not sure. Wars are won by costing the enemy’s money these days. So they are using drones on infrastructure, becuase that costs more than soldiers.

I do agree on the hormone levels. I think we should really have 3 groupings. High, medium, and low. Cause like you said, there are women who have a significant advantage over other women because of hormonal differences. And that can be a very dramatic difference. And among men the same is true. And that means guys with lower T miss out on the opportunity to experience the positives of being part of a team and such.
I don’t know if I have/had lower T, but I certainly couldn’t compete well enough to make any of the teams. But the experience probably would have done me good.

Thanks that is helpful. I struggle with the right labels. I used cis on some other post comment and got bullied hard because I didn’t use it right. I’m trying to learn. I certainly am intending to try and be an ally. But I also have a massive dislike for propaganda. Which was really the target on my comment. Hoping that people would direct their hate at those who would use propaganda and psychology to trick well meaning people into supporting bad legislation rather than those that fell for it.

As for advantage. I think that gets complicated. From what I have read, the length of time on puberty blockers and gender affirming hormones is relevant to equalizing the physical advantage. And those aren’t required to identify as trans. So a trans women “could” have significant advantages. Especially in the school years. My kid runs in a circle with a lot of LGTBQ+ kids. And most of the trans ones don’t have their parent’s support. So they aren’t on any special medications. They also don’t happen to have any interest in sports though. But I also know the doctors tend to shy away from gender affirming hormones until 16.
So I think the advantage “can” be there. And specifically under 16, it could be a decent percent who didn’t get the support they should have when younger. That said, I generally don’t think the advantage in those age brackets is any more than kids who just physically mature early. But I don’t like to say there is there is no advantage. But that goes back to my dislike of propoganda, which is really based on a bit of an obsession with accuracy of statements. That said. I can see how my words there could be interpreted as supporting the propoganda that the advantage is significant and common. So I will try to do better.

Could you clarify? Cause what I wrote was understanding how a bill managed to pass, and how it’s propaganda managed to work. So what specifically are you referring to when you say “this”. If it is the entire comment, you should read it again and spend a moment to think about it before communicating a knee jerk reaction.

They aren’t requiring a specific exam. They are just requiring a doctor to sign off that they are biologically a boy or girl. This basically come down to lifting the underwear and looking down, which is what is normally done at an early are to check for abnormalities that may need to be addressed. No touching even need to take place. At a very young age, like pre 1 or so, they do a bit more detailed checking for issues. So if you have the same doc, they could sign off based on that alone.

Vaginal exam is more than is needed to confirm boy vs girl. The docs always just lifted the underwear and looked for any sign of abnormalities that might need treatment. No poking or touching even needed.

I don’t like it, but I can get how it passed. Some league called the cops on a three year old becuase he was too good and the parents of the other kids wanted him gone. People feel strongly about fair play. And so they are susceptible to the propaganda. The “problem” is total BS, but it plays on a common emotion not matter your party affiliation.

All in all. There is very little balance in school sports anyway. Team sports especially. In those, the school with more money usually finds a way to win. So even if someone feels it isn’t fair to have a transgirl compete with women… there are much bigger sources of unfairness out there. But this one feels like something they can do something about. So again the propoganda ends up working. :(

Will I don’t support the ban. This seems a little over the top. Invasive and extreme? Any kid getiing regual exams yearly by their doctor get a genital check. That is enough I am sure. Where it gets complicated is with the poor, who can’t afford to have a regular pediatrician. But sadly they usually can’t afford to play school sports often. So there are a ton of problems with all this, like a ton. But I don’t think there are going to be any invasive and extreme exams as a result. With all the real problems this creates, can’t we just stick to those?

Thats a pretty good point. That might map out.

But how many people give money? Very few. And of course I am sure the site takes a cut. I’m not saying there isn’t some payment. But the number seem off. Maybe it was .3 to .5 for paying signatures. That could work out.

But where does that moeny supposedly come from? Ads aren’t likely to generate that much per person signing.

Well, corrupt or not, he has said he doesn’t support going after the corrupt individuals in the current administration. That is enough of a reason for me to not want him in that job.

Ya know… a shorter workday in the winter is one heck of an idea. I like it.

You have fallen for their fake. Their core values are protect the rich and get richer. They use racism and christian nationalism to get the power to keep doing it. It’s not like donny boy is taking care of the old white guys and gals who voted for him. Everyone who isn’t wealthy is beneath him.

Um, Ithought we were talking about people who could vote and chose not to because both sides suck. How did we get people who can’t vote into this discussion?

Non voters are usually apathetic. They don’t spend energy twisting facts and all that. Play victum. Sure probably, I can see that.

Excellent example of what both sides do. Twist the facts, misrepresnt the truth, flat out lie, then blame everyone else.