41
submitted 2 years ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 9 points 2 years ago

2 trillion dollars for a plane that can't fly in rain.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago

2 trillion dollars for a plane that can’t fly in rain.

What kind of sorcery is this, we ask again?

The engineers must have been high on something strong,

To create a flying machine so horribly wrong!

[-] SSJ2Marx@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago

You know how we all found out that Boeing had dry rotted from the inside because the 737 Max started falling apart? Whose to say that Lockheed hasn't gone through exactly the same shit, but we just barely get glimpses of it through the smoke of classified documents.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

I would bet this is precisely the case because exact same selection pressures apply.

[-] tartan@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago

“But we can’t possibly implement universal healthcare, how would we pay for it?”

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago

You’d think that the F-35 Lightning II, being a Lightning-type Pokémon, could survive lighting attacks.

[-] Thordros@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah, but it's flying / electric, so it still takes full damage from both water and electric moves. And if the weather is sleet, it's basically game over.

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

Would this be called a 'Boondoggle'?

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

I'd say standard operating procedure for the current bureaucratic regime.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

I do believe that is the correct term

this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
41 points (95.6% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8560 readers
408 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS