All the tested vehicles behave as expected (GMC lol) when hitting the speed bumps at speed… except one.
I know, it’s not very realistic — i.e. that specific situation is probably never going to happen — but it’s interesting, nevertheless.
Ford Explorer?
This kind of crap really throws sand in my gears:
The US Army’s declining warfighting lethality is not a mystery—it’s a direct consequence of a feudal promotion system that rewards bureaucratic survival over bold leadership, misaligning senior-level priorities with the core mission of closing with and destroying the enemy. This patronage-based structure, decoupled from lethality metrics, incentivizes risk aversion and ethical compromises, eroding the force’s combat edge even as technology advances. We’ve invested billions in cutting-edge gear—Next-Gen Squad Weapons, advanced optics, and precision munitions—yet lethality is tanking. Fewer hits at Combat Training Centers (CTCs), slower quals, and dismal first-run crew scores tell the story. The root? Not tech.
Organizations host two groups—mission-dedicated (Type 1: warfighters) and bureaucracy-dedicated (Type 2: careerists). “The second group will gain and keep control,” Jerry Pournelle asserts, crafting rules that prioritize self-preservation over goals. In the Army, Type 2s dominate, sidelining Type 1s who champion core principles like honest readiness. They lose their “seat at the cool kids’ table,” as the system favors patrons over performance.
And:
Promotions rely on feudal patronage—loyalty to superiors, not lethality. As one analysis puts it, it’s a “bargain and sale” dynamic, decoupled from warfighting. Resources improve, but lethality drops because rewards measure compliance, not kills. We’ve optimized for career survival, not victory.
Read the whole thing if you need to have your good mood spoiled.
SecWar Pete Hegseth needs to get on top of this bullshit, and quickly.
Sometimes I wonder how people stay afloat. Here’s the latest example:
Mercedes’ upcoming baby-G was supposed to be the cute, chunky electric-only gateway into G-Class ownership. But the automotive market is changing fast, and so are Benz’s plans, as it reacts to cooling demand for EVs in some markets, especially for its own electric cars. As a result, the boxy SUV will now come with hybrid power.
Internally nicknamed Little G, Autocar reports, the compact, GLB-sized, two-row off-roader is due in 2027 and will still be available as a pure EV. But a companion hybrid model is now in development, using the turbocharged four-cylinder from the latest Mercedes-Benz CLA sedan.
The change speaks to a wider reset inside Mercedes. The company has stepped back from its earlier EV-only plans, with CEO Ola Källenius confirming it will keep selling combustion models well into the 2030s to stay flexible across different markets. Tepid demand for the electric G-Class has, by most accounts, helped concentrate minds.
Okay, I would ordinarily be crowing at MB’s total stupidity in chasing after the Net Zero-inspired push to all–electric-and-only-electric mantra, and gleefully pointing at their corporate privates at having to change course. Been there, done that.
But here’s where stupidity crosses the line into gibbering idiocy, because about that four-banger they’re going to use?
The hybridized 1.5-liter unit is designed by Mercedes and built by Horse Powertrain in China, a joint venture involving Geely and Renault.
So much for that vaunted German engineering and manufacturing prowess, hey?
Now let’s just talk a little about MB’s other idiocy, this time in marketing:
After years of speculation and teasers, Mercedes-Benz’s smaller G-Class is finally edging closer to production, The compact G-Wagen sticks closely to the blocky proportions of its full-sized counterpart, aiming to carry over much of its tough, go-anywhere character.
Shrunk in scale but not in identity, it’s being positioned to take on Land Rover’s downsized Defender in the growing premium off-roader market.
The whole point of the G-wagen is that it represented a badass vibe: mil-spec toughness, powerful engine, and serious offroad capability. The fact that it had the aerodynamic qualities of a brick and used gasoline faster than you could throw it out the window in 5-gallon cans was just another middle finger to the eco-fairies, and the G-wagen’s stratospheric price made its target market all the more likely to be use it mostly in suburban commuting rather than where it outperformed almost every other UV on the market: in challenging offroad adventuring.
In short, the G-wagen was always just an exercise in conspicuous consumption (both of money and of fuel), as was (and is) the Range Rover.
What I find quite risible is that MB is going to use the “Baby G” (good name, guys) to compete with the effeminate new version of the Defender (on which I have poured scorn before).
Here’s what’s going to happen: Baby G is going to cannibalize sales from Big G, not from the Defender. And as Big G’s sales start to dip, the marketing rationale for Big G will likewise start to erode until MB has to pull it off the market. And the massive profits currently earned by Big G will be replaced by the much-smaller profits from Baby G.
You heard it here first.
Now that all the Olympics hoopla has subsided, let’s look back at Dutch skating hottie Jutta Leerdam:
As Combat Controller put it when he sent me this link, “While the NRA buys Wayne LaPierre’s suits and luxury junkets, the GOA does what they were supposed to be doing.”
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is proud to support the introduction of GOA-drafted legislation in West Virginia by Senators Chris Rose and Z. Maynard that would authorize the creation of a state entity to purchase and transfer machine guns to qualified law-abiding citizens pursuant to existing federal law.
The legislation utilizes a clear statutory exception contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), commonly known as the Hughes Amendment. While that provision generally restricts civilian possession of post-1986 machine guns, it expressly states that the prohibition “does not apply with respect to … a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of” a State or any department or political subdivision thereof.
Under the bill introduced in West Virginia, the State would establish state-run distribution centers authorized to acquire machine guns and conduct transfers “by” the State to qualified members of the general public. By structuring transactions within the text of the federal exemption, the legislation seeks to restore access to constitutionally protected arms while adhering to existing federal law.
My only question then and now is: when will Texas follow suit?
Here’s the thing: I have no interest, zero, in owning a full-auto firearm for myself. (Okay, I could make a exception for the wonderful WWII-era M2 Subbie*, but they just cost too damn much, as would the ammo I’d be blasting away at whatever the $$$$ price of .45 ACP is these days.)
But I do support the idea of anyone who does want to own one being allowed to do so. (My old line: “AK-47s in Aisle 14” applies here.)
*Yes, I’ve fired one, on several occasions, and I frigging loved it.
I know there’s going to be some kind of uproar about this:
The gold medal-winning U.S. women’s hockey team is turning down President Trump’s invitation to attend the State of the Union (SOTU) address, citing conflicting “academic and professional commitments.”
Actually, I’m going to file this under “Whatever”, because it doesn’t matter. I remember when Michael Jordan turned down an invitation from Bill Clinton to visit the White House, giving as a reason the fact that Clinton’s latest tax increase had severely impacted his financial state.
I didn’t care then, and I didn’t care now. Some time ago, I think I asked the question about getting an invitation from Obama or Biden to visit the White House, and being surprised at the vitriolic response.
And yes, I know that these girls were representing the United States, and how dare they turn down an invitation from the President of the United States.
To borrow a line from the Left: he’s not a king, and the invitation is not a Royal Summons.
Al that said, however, I do find it difficult to believe that every single member of the team has an “academic and professional commitment” which would make accepting an invitation impossible. My question is: who first suggested that these kids turn down the invitation as a team, rather than allowing individuals to make up their own mind? Or do all the team members hate Trump that much?
And let’s be honest: an invitation to attend the SOTU address would be a way for these kids to be recognized and applauded by the nation, on prime time TV. If they want to be churlish and tun down that opportunity, well, there’s no law against bad manners.
Finally, I think it would e very wrong to think of punishing the team, its members or the USOC in some way – e.g. by cutting off their funding or something like that. Now that would be churlish.
It’s not the end of the world. Forget about it, and them, and let’s focus on more important matters.
All that said, I’m glad to see how the gold-winning men’s team has responded to the same Presidential invitation. The above article makes no mention of that, but here’s one that does:
The president went on to extend an invitation to have the team at his State of the Union address on Tuesday, to which a chorus of players immediately answered, “We’re in!”
One player asked if they could have help getting to Washington, DC.
“We’ll get Kash or we’ll get the military to get you guys over,” Trump replied, garnering more cheers from the athletes.
At the end of the call, Trump said, “We love you guys. Congratulations… I’m going to shake hands with everybody, but I got to shake hands with that goalie!”
There ya go, and the hell with the chicks.