Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JetZero

jetzero.aero

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 277 posts

Re: JetZero

#261

Post by noduerme »

bruce511 wrote: post #118
noduerme wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been that guy, but only if the scenery is interesting. Still, my attitude is that at noon, people don't need to have a blanket placed over their cage like parrots to make them sleep. I also was on a flight once that had a very bouncy landing with all the windows down - when I didn't realize we were anywhere near the ground yet. I'm not into tuning out reality to that degree, and don't really feel obligated to he…

Regulations require that window shades be up (open) during take off and landing. I was sitting next to a passenger once who was asked by the steward to raise the window shade. While doing it, they asked "why". Answering for the steward I said "it's so Fire and Rescue can see into the plane if we crash". (Which is true, I used to work at airport fire and rescue.) The steward looked at me with a "that's not helpful" lo…

This made me question my memory, but I was on a Southwest flight the other day that landed with many of the windows down. Looking into it, I found this[0].

>> [IATA] recommends keeping the window shades open for takeoff and landing as best practice [...] The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also does not mandate it. Instead, U.S. airlines are free to set their own policies, and most stop short of making it a requirement.

In practice, that means airlines like Delta, American, Alaska, and Southwest typically leave it up to passengers, although flight attendants may still encourage open shades. United Airlines, which was briefly the only U.S. carrier that asked passengers to raise their shades in 2022 (an order it quickly rescinded in order to align with other carriers and provide more clarity for travelers), now also frames it as a recommendation rather than a rule.

[0] https://www.afar.com/magazine/why-do-window-shades-have-to-b...

[1] https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-window-shades/

Re: JetZero

#262

Post by carabiner »

calmbonsai wrote: post #255
carabiner wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a lot like saying, "as someone 5 hours into driver's ed in my mom's honda civic, I believe that future stability control algorithms in self-driving cars..." Or the difference between a (noob) software user and a software engineer.

No. I'm, in essence, saying the opposite. To use your analogy "as someone with 5 hours into driver's ed in my mom's civic I now realize how hard driving actually is and why ALL cars still have 4 wheels, still use a steering wheel, and still have seat-belts".

That's not what your original comment says at all. You're pontificating on future aircraft configurations while you're just learning the ABC's of being an enduser of said products. Being a learning pilot confers zero expertise on conceptual design. It probably gives you less expertise than being a longtime aviation journalist like Bill Sweetman.

Re: JetZero

#263

Post by carabiner »

stickfigure wrote: post #259
calmbonsai wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I'm, in essence, saying the opposite. To use your analogy "as someone with 5 hours into driver's ed in my mom's civic I now realize how hard driving actually is and why ALL cars still have 4 wheels, still use a steering wheel, and still have seat-belts".

People with a handful of hours towards a private pilot's license have no (zero, zip, nada) expertise or insight when it comes to the design and manufacture of commercial airliners. You might feel like you do, but it has no basis in fact, because the constraints that really matter are things that engineers have spent a hundred years working out by trial and error (and crashing a lot of aircraft). We wouldn't take airl…

When I worked in flight test you realize how much pilots don't know anything. It's exactly like a car driver vs. automotive engineer.

Re: JetZero

#264

Post by mmooss »

dash2 wrote: post #251
mmooss wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, lots of people acting together regularly accomplish things - almost everything wortwhile is accomplished that way, probably back to our non-homo ancestors. As a simple matter, it keeps my city clean - we all put garbage in the bins (yes there's a law, but no way could it be enforced if the great majority of people didn't do it already). More dramatically and recently, the protests in India. > society Societ…

I think you've misunderstood my comment. I understand that people can do things together. My point was that the best thing to do together is to solve our problems at lowest total cost, and that choosing a high-cost solution can be individual "virtue signalling".

> virtue signalling

That term lacks all credibility - it's just a weak attack based on mind-reading - and is a signal itself.

Most people actually want do good - humans naturally are very social and want to do well for the group - and without prioritizing signaling. How sad that some are so politically driven by reactionary politics that their contribution is to snipe at others.

Re: JetZero

#265

Post by DrewADesign »

a34729t wrote: post #55
DrewADesign wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, if SpaceX did rockets… I wouldn’t be surprised if they could be very nimble compared to the big ones.

Bullshit i cant hear you. Commcercial airliners are sold at a loss and are basically giant jobs programs. Modern jetliners are enormously efficient already; there has been a continuous race over the last century to this end.

Why are you typing like you’re in an argument in a bar?

Re: JetZero

#266

Post by dash2 »

mmooss wrote: post #264
dash2 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've misunderstood my comment. I understand that people can do things together. My point was that the best thing to do together is to solve our problems at lowest total cost, and that choosing a high-cost solution can be individual "virtue signalling".

> virtue signalling That term lacks all credibility - it's just a weak attack based on mind-reading - and is a signal itself. Most people actually want do good - humans naturally are very social and want to do well for the group - and without prioritizing signaling. How sad that some are so politically driven by reactionary politics that their contribution is to snipe at others.

> That term lacks all credibility

I disagree. There's coherent economic theory about how costly actions can be used to provide credible signals. It's been used in a wide variety of disciplines including biology (peacock's tails). No mind-reading is needed. I understand that sometimes it is used by right-wingers to attack left-wing positions. My comment wasn't driven by reactionary politics, and my point was to encourage people to think about what actually does well for the group - which, at the risk of repeating myself, is about minimizing the cost for a given level of benefit.

Re: JetZero

#267

Post by mmooss »

dash2 wrote: post #266
mmooss wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> virtue signalling That term lacks all credibility - it's just a weak attack based on mind-reading - and is a signal itself. Most people actually want do good - humans naturally are very social and want to do well for the group - and without prioritizing signaling. How sad that some are so politically driven by reactionary politics that their contribution is to snipe at others.

> That term lacks all credibility I disagree. There's coherent economic theory about how costly actions can be used to provide credible signals. It's been used in a wide variety of disciplines including biology (peacock's tails). No mind-reading is needed. I understand that sometimes it is used by right-wingers to attack left-wing positions. My comment wasn't driven by reactionary politics, and my point was to encour…

If you do understand theory and science, you know that theory doesn't apply to individuals, that it's evidence of nothing.

To describe something in the real world, you need objective evidence, in this case of someone's motive - or there's always mind-reading.

Re: JetZero

#268

Post by dash2 »

mmooss wrote: post #267
dash2 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That term lacks all credibility I disagree. There's coherent economic theory about how costly actions can be used to provide credible signals. It's been used in a wide variety of disciplines including biology (peacock's tails). No mind-reading is needed. I understand that sometimes it is used by right-wingers to attack left-wing positions. My comment wasn't driven by reactionary politics, and my point was to encour…

If you do understand theory and science, you know that theory doesn't apply to individuals, that it's evidence of nothing. To describe something in the real world, you need objective evidence, in this case of someone's motive - or there's always mind-reading.

There’s lots of evidence for costly signalling across multiple domains! For this specific case, I can’t be certain about any individual’s motivation, of course - I simply raised the possibility and pointed out why it would be a bad idea to think that way.

Re: JetZero

#269

Post by port11 »

dbspin wrote: post #244
port11 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a privilege with most externalities _not_ taken into account, i.e. it’s hurting us all because we ignore its true cost and make it available in vast quantities. Since the global South will suffer the most from climate change, they might disagree with developed nations ‘subsiding’ flights.

The phrase the global south elides the fact that those countries are far higher in inequality than the West. Wealthy elites being the only ones able to travel isn't a solution to climate change, it's a recipe for a degree of social control we haven't seen in a century. We can fight climate change, and increase mobility, standard of living and freedom for all. There is an enormous amount of low hanging fruit here - fr…

I agree with all your points, except that 1) people can travel through other means, and 2) people can travel less. I have plenty of acquaintances that could do with a bit of discovering theirs and nearby countries by train, and perhaps fly half as much as they do (6-10 return flights per year for mini beach vacations).

Re: JetZero

#270

Post by noduerme »

rc5150 wrote: post #115
noduerme wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been that guy, but only if the scenery is interesting. Still, my attitude is that at noon, people don't need to have a blanket placed over their cage like parrots to make them sleep. I also was on a flight once that had a very bouncy landing with all the windows down - when I didn't realize we were anywhere near the ground yet. I'm not into tuning out reality to that degree, and don't really feel obligated to he…

On a airplane, one man's noon is another man's 4am. Your attitude is socially problematic.

>> Your attitude is socially problematic

My response to anyone using that kind of language is "go fuck yourself, you pompous shit," but let me explain more clearly: Me keeping my window open is no more problematic than other people trying to force someone to sit in the dark at noon.

What's odious about your comment is that it presumes one is a "problem" if they don't do what everyone around them is doing. Really, the world doesn't need more conformists, but what we really don't need are more people scolding anyone who has a mind of their own. Somehow your comment manages to distill the union of social bullying and cowardice in the fewest possible words. It's interesting. Your language is that of a psychotic conformist, legible to those who don't have that disease.

Post reply on HN