printed/println debugging works if you wrote the code or have a good idea of where to go.
I frequently find myself debugging large unfamiliar code bases, and typically it’s much easier to stick a breakpoint in and start following where it goes rather than blindly start instrumenting with print statements and hoping that you picked the right code path.
Flight simulator games (i.e. Digital Combat Simulator) tend to be CPU bound, though, depending high-end VR or having enough monitors with enough pixels can quickly become GPU-limited, the underlying simulation, systems modelling, sensor simulations, AI, etc, will still all be CPU limited.
I suggested this on a thread in /r/cpp a few years ago, and was downvoted heavily, and chewed out for the reason that coding for ease of debugging was apparently akin to baby killing.
It’s worse than that. Find a random blog that gives you shell commands that add random repositories to your apt sources.list, adds the ssl keys, and installs packages from the repo, all through a paste to the command line.
>EVs generally will require less maintenance as they are substantially simpler vehicles with less moving parts.
I keep hearing this, but then keep seeing stories about huge repair bills and wait times for repairs on EVs, and threats of insurance rates for EVs to increase because of the high cost to repair.
A large percentage of the repair work on fossil fuel cars is body work, brakes, suspension, etc. All components that EVs have. I’m skeptical that this work will be cheaper on EVs than any other car.
It's also said in the JRE video, Fravor isn't the only military pilot to have done that stunt, and likely won't be the last. When pilots perform such flights, they aren't taking those jets out with the intention of performing a 'hoax'. They're going out on a normal night time low level qualification mission, where the parameters of the mission are to fly with lights off, at low level, along some routing, in a military range closed to other aviation traffic. Eventually, they have to climb up to elevation, and return to base, and there is some leeway in how that last part gets done, and they have chosen to do it close to campfires or other lights they see in their NVGs, while lighting the afterburner. Fravor also says in the JRE episode that they flew a lot of those missions, suggesting that there is a level of boredom and complacency. He also says that it was a restricted bombing range, so the campfires he sees are likely people who are tresspassing/sneaking into the range often with the intention of spotting/photographing fighter jets, so he wants to give them a bit of a show, also to let the campers know that the pilot know that they're there.
Fighter pilot culture wouldn't see such pranks as that big of a deal. That's why when people like Burke talk about Fravor they only see the decades of service to his country, about his conduct while commanding a fighter squadron, of leading other pilots into combat, or being a naval aviator. A simple prank at the end of a training mission that fighter pilots anywhere would chuckle over at the O'club doesn't rise to the level of needing to be mentioned, and wouldn't even stand out as being remarkable enough to even be remembered.
I also think when Burke is talking about a 'UFO Hoax', I think he is trying to say that he doesn't see Fravor perpetrating a false sighting, and then doing interview after interview about the Nimitz encounter and basically straight up lying with the intention of decieving the public. As I said above, the simple prank of lighting after burners over campfires over people likely trespassing on a restricted bombing range and along frequently used military training routes wouldn't rise to the level of being remarkable enough to be considered a 'hoax' in the eyes of a fellow fighter pilot. That is why Fravor doesn't bat an eye about telling the story, and that is why Burke doesn't mention it when discussing Fravors character or credibility. Also note that in Fravors campfire story, there is no lie, there is no deceit, there is no conspiracy and ongoing narrative to convince the public otherwise. To fighter pilots it's just a prank. Go to an airshow and you'll see the Blue Angles do basically the same thing. One fighter sneaks off low, and while the rest are doing acrobatics above, that one fighter comes in low over the crowd from out of sight and scares the daylights out of everyone. Fighter pilots love that stuff.
But, I take your point. I agree it doesn't help his credibility.
So, the sinister, diabolical, and self-admitted hoaxer Fravor, whos character has been compared to a sleezy used-car salesman online, somehow manages to get 60 nautical miles off the aircraft carrier during a training deployment without being spotted, deploy a drone/balloon, somehow gets back to the carrier in time to go on his training mission, spots his decoy, manages to convince another pilot that it's something strange, strange enough that they convince another pair of aircraft to go out and identify Fravors drone, and they manages to get it on their targetting pod... and then, in his vile deceitfulness, Fravor then does.... nothing, and basically tells no one.
That is until 13 years later, when the singer of Blink-182 goes on a fishing expedition with freedom of information requests, and somehow a short video segment of Fravors heinous hoax come to light.
But, if Fravors story isn't credible because of that, to me it doesn't change much:
- The "tic tac" video recorded from that encounter wasn't recorded when Fravor was in the air, he was back at the carrier. It was a follow on flight that had their aircraft equipped with targetting pods.
- Fravor's aircraft had a backseat WSO who witnessed what Fravor saw, to my knowledge that officer hasn't spoken in public or denied Fravor's story
- There was a second aircraft in the air when Fravor had that encounter, also with a pilot and WSO. The pilot of that second aircraft has interviewed confirming Fravor's story.
- Radar operators from the Princeton operating the AEGIS radar have interviewed saying that they also saw the objects.
- To my knowledge no one, either in the air, on the carrier, or in the air wing has stepped forward and claimed that Fravor, or anyone else was lying, or making up stories.
Fravors "Hoax" involved flying F/A-18E Super Hornets at low level, at night, over campfires they could see along their route and lighting their after burners. This was done in areas like Nellis where there are a lot of military jet activity. Anyone watching from the ground with any modicum of exposure to military jets would have immediately known from the site and sound exactly what it was. He was putting on a show. Did he otherwise publish videos, pictures, articles, or other media to try to otherwise "dupe" the public into believing that these were "UFOS"? No.
The context of the discussion in Fravors interview he was more jokingly describing some of the cowboy stunts that military pilots do that might be mistakingly interpreted as UFOs.
I also find peoples generatal non-response strange, though, I don't find Grusch's testimony that compelling: he didn't actually see anything, or really have any evidence. I find the US Navy pilot observations to be both more credible, and more interesting. Those I know who have looked into it, both IRl and online, both seem to take any debunking of the videos by Mick West to be the final word on the subject, but to me the videos are just short views into much longer encounters viewed by multiple people.
The response of the public at large seems both muted, and a bit off. US Navy pilots claim to see UFOs? The response largely seems to be "They're just Chinese spy balloons or something, who cares, yawn". But then actual Chinese spy balloons show up and the public/media loses their minds over it.
> We still have only one data point for life and one data point for intelligence.
Don't we have many points for both? There are ~8.7 million species on the planet. What we only have one data point for is a planet that contains life and intelligence.