Against the stupidity of the gods themselves are powerless to fight!
In 1999, Justin Kruger and David Dunning were put forward, and then the hypothesis of a psychological phenomenon was experimentally confirmed, resulting in the name of the authors. The essence of the phenomenon is that people with a low level of knowledge in the subject area (competence) make erroneous inferences. And since the low level of competence does not allow them to sort out their own mistakes, they consider their opinion to be the ultimate truth. No scientifically reasoned argument will force them to change their mind. Americans did not fly to the moon, and that's it. (For scientific evidence of Americans staying on the moon, see the end of the article.)
The main topic of the articles of the authors affected by this ailment is the overthrow of truths, groundbreaking, sensations sucked from the finger (one of the four themes of tabloid literature: fear, sex, scandal and sensation; four “C”). The authors, whose own technical level does not go beyond the scope of a hank of blue electrical tape, are taken to judge the features of German stamping forty-two years. Kneading on a spoonful of useful information, sucked from archives or open sources, a barrel of conjectures and expounding a theme in the form of a banter, you can count on attracting equally close readers. The subconscious meaning of such publications is trivial trolling, provoking readers with polar views to publicly clarify the relationship with the use of insults.
According to the psychologists, behind the banter intonation of pressure and superiority often hidden consciousness of their own incompetence and failure. Ambition, elevation over others, the desire to feel better than others can be one of the goals of a banter (Wikipedia).
The inclusion of irony in the text is like a spice to the dish. A little, but the taste is remembered for a long time. But when the whole text is written in the manner of mockery, it is already nauseous. I recommend to trace the degradation of Michael Weller in this regard. His first works were read with interest, the irony was appropriate and he wrote, in general, about what he had practical experience with. But as soon as he began to write about things in which he doesn't understand a damn thing, he fell into a jerk. His latest novel, Our Prince and Khan, is impossible to read. There are, of course, lovers far from stories, philosophies, theories of systems that will take this book for the first time and will be amazed by the elegant turns of thought, the beauty of verbal patterns and the abundance of irony and sarcasm, but they will not find useful information there. Do not fall for this bait. Appreciate your time.
Let's go back to our riflearmory subject.
A prominent representative of the chamber marked by Dunning-Kruger syndrome is the well-known blogger Kungurov, who has reached the dock in his work. Recently, I had the indiscretion of disrespectfully replying to a single opus by a similar author, published in LJ. I do not give the link, so as not to increase the karma of the patient. Those interested can easily identify the author of the above quotes. And since my interlocutor (not the author of the opus) asked me for arguments in the studio, I had to promise to answer with a detailed article.
So, the opus begins:
"... I would like to spit the following theses ..."
Sick, show the language. Why not "... I would like to throw g ... on the fan"? We decided to get away from stamps, to be original. Understandably, understandably. Well, what about us?
1) The last time the cartridge for the main weapon was relatively normal, was something like 1930x. And it was not the military who prevailed there (it just taxied out (9X19), but economic considerations (we’ll cut the trunks for the 7,62 from rifle scraps). In practice, of course, it turned out about the scraps ... nya, but in general, for software, that’s awesome cartridge that Luger, in fact, were approximately monopenisual.
(Hereinafter quotations are given without editing, but with the replacement of the dots of wickedness. - Ed.)
The trunks of "rifle scraps" are like trunks of the "scraps" of rifle barrels used in the Soudaev submachine gun. A fact known in the history of weapons, really allowed to reduce the costs of producing better PP of the second world war. PPP was better than its competitor MP-40, not only in TTX, but cost almost three times cheaper, including for the expense of "... and" from the scraps. But what a thick shell of verbal diarrhea, which carries absolutely no useful information, and what a distortion of the correct technical solution in "... nude"!
2) cartridge arr. 43, how many do not inflate the cheeks, appeared as a reaction to the German cruiser fire, and the principle of "on ... more" - a sleeve in 39 mm (first 40 in general) against theirs 33. Although, again, with our gunpowder of that time on the German sleeve, we would hardly have obtained the necessary characteristics, the sad experience of the German PTR is very indicative in this regard.
I do not know how the others, but I understand this mental bowel movement as follows. Our designers, creating a new cartridge, did not work according to the customer’s specifications and did not carry out calculations and experiments for different calibers, bullets, shapes, compositions of gunpowder, loading densities and liner sizes, but focused on the length of the German cartridge case, and worse in power, just increased the length of the liner. The meaning of this insinuation is in the phrase “how many blow your cheeks.” It’s not even easy to discredit the achievement of creating one of the most famous and mass patrons of the twentieth century, it’s a spit in the spirit of Nevzorov, which has reached the point of utter absurdity, to the point of decency and common sense, after which schizophrenia begins. What are the "necessary characteristics" needed to get on the German sleeve with our gunpowder? To whom? What is our gunpowder WUFL was worse than the German Nz.RP1x0.8 / 0.2? What does the apparent sadness in the German PTR? In general, sheer drama.
3) After the war, they tried to bring the "43 obr." Long and tediously, but then a new potential opponent threw the topic of the unimpulsive patron again had to be caught up and overtaken.
Work on the improvement of models of weapons, whether it is a cartridge or a footcloth, is ongoing. This is an obvious fact, a characteristic of any creative process. The search for improved performance characteristics and lower production costs is the path to which the product goes after its adoption. The product will either be improved, or the customer will refuse it. There is no other scenario. To call it a long and tedious procedure of “bringing to the mind” means only that the author has no idea about design and production. The term "life cycle" is unknown to him.
Life is not a sport. The laurels of the "discoverers" of the new type of cartridge let it dry on the bald heads of their developers. The second are always the winners, who, having studied the mistakes of the “discoverers”, create a superior sample, as was the case with the intermediate 7,62х39 and low-pulse 5,45х39 cartridges.
As a result - you can, of course, be proud for a long time that 1913 overtook the year in the smelting of iron, in the sense that our analogue flies better and pierces more than that of the adversary, but often it's just a story that the road to the deadlock / swamp succeeded pass on. Well, or take the first place in the competition of fools. In a hard and long struggle, yes :)
At the competition of fools, and so it is clear who the first exhibit is: not the one who is in the labutenes, but the one who makes more foolishness that the story of creating a better weapon than the opponent’s turned out to be a fairy tale about the road to the swamp.
And with the Americans and the Moon, everything is very simple. Tell me, will Americans take the risk of falsifying the landing on the moon, if by that time we had not only planted our vehicles on its surface at a given point, but had launched a lunar rover almost simultaneously with them? Could it be that the Russians, at the slightest suspicion of falsifying the landings by the Americans, would not have used their lunar rovers to disgrace them to the whole world?
In my opinion, the arguments are more than convincing. Despite this, there are still not translated amateurs and professionals in the field of four "C" (among which may be persons with academic degrees!), Who periodically spit their theses into the media space, denigrating the national history. And sometimes just insulting people alive and departed, to which these schkokers like Papuans before Schiller.