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

Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 494 posts

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#351

Post by lurking_swe »

autoexec wrote: post #208
busymom0 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't own AirPods but it is a huge commercial success.

They were designed so that they'd get easily lost and they prevent you from replacing the battery. With enough marketing even a low quality product like airpods can be a commercial success https://apple.slashdot.org/story/19/05/12/0256259/why-airpod...

i’ve owned airpods for 8 years and lost them once. by “lost” i mean i forgot them when frantically checking out of a hotel to catch a flight.

Not everyone is careless with their things. On the aspect of battery replacement, i agree it’s a shame.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#352

Post by parineum »

ma2rten wrote: post #342
parineum wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what "the exception proves the rule" means. It means, when you see a sign that says an exception, "no parking Wednesdays between 8 and 12", it proves the rule that parking is allowed otherwise.

Your use of the phrase makes no sense. It's the "no parking" that proofs the rule and not the exception.

"No parking on Wednesday between 9-12pm"

Imagine you got a parking ticket on Tuesday. What would your defense in court be?

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#353

Post by ddalex »

ma2rten wrote: post #342
parineum wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what "the exception proves the rule" means. It means, when you see a sign that says an exception, "no parking Wednesdays between 8 and 12", it proves the rule that parking is allowed otherwise.

Your use of the phrase makes no sense. It's the "no parking" that proofs the rule and not the exception.

that's actually the correct use of the phrase "the exception proves the rule"

the rule is that the parking is allowed; the exception is that it's not allowed on Wednesdays; they didn't bother spelling out "parking is allowed at all other times except"

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#354

Post by sach1 »

parineum wrote: post #350
rendaw wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP's use is listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule... under "Proving the validity of a rule of thumb"

It's listed there as a way that people use it and then calls that usage objectionable and a misunderstanding. I don't dispute that people use it that way but it's objectively a misuse. The phrase's misuse implies that evidence against a statement supports the statement. > In many uses of the phrase, however, the existence of an exception is taken to more definitively 'prove' a rule to which the exception does not fit…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description

Try to understand that there is no individual ownership over turns of phrase, and that they tend to shift around over time. Bugs Bunny turned Nimrod from a byword for a competent hunter into an insult.

This is natural and all of your favorite words have or will be subject to it as long as there are humans to communicate with them.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#355

Post by hypercube33 »

masklinn wrote: post #84
silverquiet wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read "Airframe" by Michael Crichton probably twenty years ago, and it was around ten years old at that time. I remember that that book talked about how the planes were unstable by design and required software to maintain proper flight characteristics, and that this was so because it was more efficient. The book is fiction, but I doubt it was far off the mark at the time. I suspect that there is no going back from t…

War planes dropped natural stability a while ago, IIRC the F16 was the first relaxed stability production aircraft (it's naturally stable at supersonic speeds but not subsonic). In fact there was a flying airliner with relaxed stability (though only neutral not negative) when Airframe was published: the MD-11. Though I don't know that there have been others since.

Isn't the high landing speed one of the unstable traits of this plane?

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#356

Post by masklinn »

linuxftw wrote: post #163
masklinn wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik all analysis of the max’s design have come to the conclusion that its natural behaviour was nothing special or dangerous. It’s just that in some edge cases the nose would lift faster than on an NG, and that was not acceptable if it was sold as a 737 with no retraining.

One would think this question would have been answered directly in the FAA report, but it got zero mentions. We got zero data on how often MCAS made adjustments and how often in the report. Basically, we only have Boeing's word for it, which is worthless. They self-certified everything, and we see how that went.

> One would think this question would have been answered directly in the FAA report

No, one would not, as it is of no interest to any regulator. They’re not dealing with any sort of non-mcas non-737 max.

> We got zero data on how often MCAS made adjustments and how often in the report.

This has no relevance to what I am talking about.

> we only have Boeing's word for it

We don’t have that because it is of no interest to Boeing either.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#357

Post by hinkley »

TylerE wrote: post #194
mrguyorama wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Landing gear is limited by physics and just making it taller won’t fix everything. Every other plane is higher than the 737. The only reason the engines needed to be pushed forward on the 737, is that the 737 was built back in the day to be lower to the ground for easier operations at poorer airports, with things like stairs and baggage. The 737 doesn't need to be as short as it is anymore because the vast majority…

That isn’t really true. Air stairs are still very common in much of Europe and Asia. It’s only places like the US and the Middle East that jet bridges are ubiquitous.

The software I wrote for them had to be legal to ship to every country except The Four, which created some new copyright scenarios I’d never dealt with before. When you’re trying to sell to 190 countries, you gotta be ready for a lot, and I’m not surprised that the external stairs are still a thing. Doubly so for a regional jet, which could be flying from all of your country to the nearest international airport.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#358

Post by riffraff »

sach1 wrote: post #354
parineum wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's listed there as a way that people use it and then calls that usage objectionable and a misunderstanding. I don't dispute that people use it that way but it's objectively a misuse. The phrase's misuse implies that evidence against a statement supports the statement. > In many uses of the phrase, however, the existence of an exception is taken to more definitively 'prove' a rule to which the exception does not fit…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description Try to understand that there is no individual ownership over turns of phrase, and that they tend to shift around over time. Bugs Bunny turned Nimrod from a byword for a competent hunter into an insult. This is natural and all of your favorite words have or will be subject to it as long as there are humans to communicate with them.

Ooooh that's why nimrod is an insult! Now it makes sense! Thank you!

Btw, let me add my personal pet peeve: "egregiously" somehow went from meaning "very good" to mean "very bad" in American English.

In my native language "egregiamente" still has the original meaning so I was confused for a long time.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#359

Post by hinkley »

lelanthran wrote: post #224
hinkley wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Has a degree that’s basically informatics management. My coworker took a class with case studies and the theory presented by that class was that all successful projects have at least one person who has fit the entire system into their head. They can tell you what happens if you pull on this thread. What the consequences are of trying to remove this feature. Lose them and you are fucke…

> Until or unless someone else steps up and does the same. Or the company ponies up and rewrites the thing. Sometimes legacy really is bad, and sometimes you really do need to throw the old product into the bin. See Trello for an example.

Rewriting is moving the goalposts and hoping that person emerges in the rewrite. They often don’t. Or they get fed up with reasonable criticism and leave. Which is a variant of the Lavaflow Antipattern.

Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement

#360

Post by hinkley »

cptroot wrote: post #139
hinkley wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Has a degree that’s basically informatics management. My coworker took a class with case studies and the theory presented by that class was that all successful projects have at least one person who has fit the entire system into their head. They can tell you what happens if you pull on this thread. What the consequences are of trying to remove this feature. Lose them and you are fucke…

That sounds like a very interesting theory, with an actionable result. Do you have any links for more reading?

I haven’t talked to that guy in a while. The way the class was described I expect there’s a bibliography somewhere though.
Post reply on HN