Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread

[00CuriousObserver]

Well, just because they are smart STEM students don’t necessarily mean that they are technical experts in all fields. I have a bit of software development experience from really low stuff like assembly/C to stuff like Java and Python but you don’t see me claiming that I’m better than Huawei engineers because I’ve taken undergrad courses in Linear Systems and DSP. Don’t be frightened by people throwing around technical jargons. Good chance they don’t understand it fully themselves and bank on that to frighten non-technical people.

Usually a good rule of thumb is getting them to explain things in layman terms. The best algo tutorials on YouTube can explain complex concepts in layman terms whereas bullshitters try throwing shit till something sticks during technical interviews.

Of course, the point was more so in terms of the relationship between their expertise and some of their political "red flags".

Lol I’m senior and seasoned enough here to know what motivates people to pursue certain kinds of conversation and I will call it as I see it. If you feel embarrassed about it then don’t do it again. Don’t try me

I am displeased about the accusation not because I am embarrassed about it but because it is untrue. My motivation to watch and discuss the PLA (including this discussion in question) is because I am curious about observing it. With due respect to your experience, please do not make such assumptions on me. And I will also be dropping this engagement here.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Of course, the point was more so in terms of the relationship between their expertise and some of their political "red flags".

I think many intellectuals just hate authorities to a certain extent. American ones hate US institutions and Chinese ones hate Chinese institutions because they are exposed to the negatives of their respective systems.

 

[Blitzo]

Of course, the point was more so in terms of the relationship between their expertise and some of their political "red flags".



I am displeased about the accusation not because I am embarrassed about it but because it is untrue. My motivation to watch and discuss the PLA (including this discussion in question) is because I am curious about observing it. With due respect to your experience, please do not make such assumptions on me. And I will also be dropping this engagement here.

The issue is that it should have been obvious from the outset that the initial posts were fallacious to begin with. If you thought that they were useful or constructive, that is fine and can be explained away by being fresh/naive/unfamiliar with the topic.

That impression that is being conveyed here is not helped by saying that the responses to your post "had value in themselves. But sure" -- for those of us who have been here a while, that justification just feels tiresome and gives the impression you are trying to start something.


A more constructive response may have been something like "that post was stupid and shouldn't have been posted here to begin with, I'll be more judicious and selective of what I bring to the forum that I believe is actually serious or useful basis of discussion".

 

[latenlazy]

The issue is that it should have been obvious from the outset that the initial posts were fallacious to begin with. If you thought that they were useful or constructive, that is fine and can be explained away by being fresh/naive/unfamiliar with the topic.

That impression that is being conveyed here is not helped by saying that the responses to your post "had value in themselves. But sure" -- for those of us who have been here a while, that justification just feels tiresome and gives the impression you are trying to start something.


A more constructive response may have been something like "that post was stupid and shouldn't have been posted here to begin with, I'll be more judicious and selective of what I bring to the forum that I believe is actually serious or useful basis of discussion".

I don’t want to pile on harder here but I think maybe a useful rule of thumb people should think more about before posting in the future is “Am I posting this for controversy or rage bait”. If the answer is yes please don’t post.

And a corollary that’s just as important here is “Even if I don’t intend for my post to be controversy/rage bait could the post come off that way? If it can be construed that way how do I frame my comments to avoid leading the discussion in that direction?”

Tbh I feel like maybe this should actually become a rule, because it does feel like a lot of threads get derailed precisely because people sometimes aren’t judicious about these kinds of questions.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

The issue is that it should have been obvious from the outset that the initial posts were fallacious to begin with. If you thought that they were useful or constructive, that is fine and can be explained away by being fresh/naive/unfamiliar with the topic.

That impression that is being conveyed here is not helped by saying that the responses to your post "had value in themselves. But sure" -- for those of us who have been here a while, that justification just feels tiresome and gives the impression you are trying to start something.


A more constructive response may have been something like "that post was stupid and shouldn't have been posted here to begin with, I'll be more judicious and selective of what I bring to the forum that I believe is actually serious or useful basis of discussion".

I see, fair enough. To be clear, the intention was benign and I believe some previous comments show that.

The reason that specific response came off as tiresome and less constructive—I don't mean to excuse myself but rather to explain in a feedbacky way—is that the request I received felt like backseat modding. I have nothing against the member or their point in particular, (edit: and of course I think more casual requests and criticisms are fine) but such authoritative commands would be better received if they came from moderators rather than members. There may be other dynamics in this forum, but as a relatively new member, I can only infer a limited amount.

 

[latenlazy]

I see, fair enough. To be clear, the intention was benign and I believe some previous comments show that.

The reason that specific response came off as tiresome and less constructive—I don't mean to excuse myself but rather to explain in a feedbacky way—is that the request I received felt like backseat modding. I have nothing against the member or their point in particular, but such authoritative commands would be better received if they came from moderators rather than members. There may be other dynamics in this forum, but as a relatively new member, I can only infer a limited amount.

The comment of mine you took ire with wasn’t a reply to you, but a response to a (admittedly somewhat rhetorical) question posed by siegecrossbow, and while I did have your post in mind, I wasn’t speaking only to your post but a broader problem with the pattern of posting from a lot of different people in a lot of other cases. Either way, my comments were a general set of suggestions for anyone reading. If I was trying to “backseat moderate” you I would have addressed you directly.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

The comment of mine you took ire with wasn’t a reply to you, but a response to a (admittedly somewhat rhetorical) question posed by siegecrossbow, and while I did have your post in mind, I wasn’t speaking only to your post but a broader problem with the pattern of posting from a lot of different people in a lot of other cases. Either way, my comments were a general set of suggestions for anyone reading. If I was trying to “backseat moderate” you I would have addressed you directly.

I wasn't referring to your comment but the previous ones.

 

[latenlazy]

I wasn't referring to your comment but the previous ones.

Okay, fair. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[Iron Man]

Against those who judged J36 as ugly, I think it is beautiful. It looks like off-spring of a unicon fish and trumpet fish. Just a personal taste.

The out of this world look is simply futuristic.

Ths absence of chase plane possibly indicate that the earlier flight was going well. Pitot tube was there as expected, and as well as the extension of the landing gears. Still very early stage of testings. The next 5-6 years will test your patience and expectation.

Totally agree with you. I actually like the aesthetics of this bison dorito. To me it looks a futuristic hunter-killer, the apex predator of the skies.

 

[AndrewJ]

By the way ... Am I wrong or are these the two pilots sitting behind each other and so the cockpit arrangement looks more like not side by side (tandem) as many assumed but actually a classic front and back arrangement?

View attachment 148058

Considering one of 6th gen's role is to Command & Control a group of CCAs, future air combats are more of video games. I have to say, playing games in a double row at an internet cafe is so exciting. As for multiplayer video games, I prefer seats arranged side by side instead of front and back.