I could care less. I am never flying with Boeing - ever.
Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement
441–450 of 494 posts
Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't that something that's more the responsibility of the airlines, who decide how many seats are put in a plane, following the limits of the aircraft? For pitch, yes. For width, no —- you run into quantization pretty quickly. The difference between sardines and standard economy is less than the difference between 3+3 and 3+2 — it’s not really feasible for most traditional airlines to choose a different number of…
Seat and aisle widths are customer selectable options. Hence, a customer may order a 787 with 3-3-3 seating or 2-4-2 seating. The vast majority of airlines chose sardines instead of comfort. In a 737, customers only can get 3-3 seating, but they can choose wide (17.8”) seats and skinny aisles, like Southwest does, or they can choose skinny (17.1”) seats and wider aisles, like Alaska does.
Sort of timely because I was on an Alaska Max 9 yesterday I couldn't believe how narrow the aisle was. I actually looked up whether a Max 9 fuselage was narrower than a traditional 737, it was that bad. Now, it's possible this plane had the wider seat option (possible ex-Hawaiian, if they used a different config?), but even so, I've been on a lot of planes, and this is the first where I felt like I had to walk down the aisle sideways.
Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way most people use it is wrong though and not in the normal "language evolves" way. The exception of a lawyer being a good CEO does not, in any way, prove that lawyers are not good CEOs .
Words are just noises. Think of them as pointers. They point to a concept in the brain. What concept that may be differs from person to person. But as long as the words point to something, they aren't used wrongly. The idea that there was some point in history were the pointer target was officially designated to be x is just false. That point in time never existed.
My point isn't that the use of the phrase is wrong, the point is that the colloquial understanding of the phrase is a bad concept.
[All] lawyers are bad CEOs is a statement that was made. Evidence to the contrary was presented. "The exception proves the rule" was used to dismiss that evidence.
It's used in a similar way as "God works in mysterious ways".
Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
The C919 isn’t even competitive with where Boeing was 20 or 30 years ago.
I'm admittedly very much not an expert in this area. But my post is less about the C919 specifically, and more about China's track record of developing manufacturing processes very rapidly such that they compete on the world market. Specifically I'm thinking of how China is suddenly exporting tons of EVs throughout the world at prices that USA/EU auto-makers can't really compete with. Over 50% of EVs sold in the worl…
China "cheated" with EVs. They never managed to make a combustion engine that could hold a candle against western ones in terms of efficiency and reliability. Electric motors are waaay simpler.
I doubt that the same will happen in commertial aircraft engines. If China catches up it will be through industrial spionage or very slow grinding, that will take many years.
Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement
#445Earlier 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.
God Internet pendants are exhausting. I KNOW, but it's a harmless rhetorical device. This begs the question of why you care. There you go, that's a good one to get fired up about.
> I KNOW, but it's a harmless rhetorical device.
I don't really care but but when I found out the actual meaning of the phrase (the usage of which never really made sense to me), it made a lot more sense to me. I thought it was interesting.
I'd also argue that "it's harmless" is not always accurate. It's usage dismisses counter-evidence to a statement. Depending on the case, it may or may not be harmless.
Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement
#446Earlier 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.
There’s no need to be so literal. We’re discussing here, not formulating mathematical statements. Read for what was intended by the author and you’ll learn more.
> Lawyers are bad CEOs
> That's weird because this one was good
> Ah an exception to the rule. That proves it, lawyers are bad CEOs!
Is that not what was intended by the author?
Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the most exceptional CEOs I've worked with was a lawyer. I still think the proverb is largely correct, along with the other proverb about the exception proving the rule.
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.
Yes, but in common usage it has come to also mean "the [rarity of finding an] exception proves the [general validity of] the rule", and it was clear from context which one the parent meant.
Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
A phrase does not mean anything by itself. People mean something when they use it. You could argue that expressions carry some meaning, by virtue of shared use. But your definition does not align with the meaning most people make of this specific expression as you can witness above.
A lot of people say a lot of stupid things, it does not make them less stupid and incorrect. Unless a million flies can't be wrong!
But the intended insight isn't stupid, and "the exception proves the rule" is a natural, easily-inferred contraction of "the rarity of finding an exception proves the general validity of the rule".
Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a beautiful conference (which I’ve lost) saying that science and technology can regress. We always talk about “the progress” but things do regress all the time; Tests I’ve cleared for employment can’t be passed by newcomers, the NASA wouldn’t be able to put a rocket on the moon today, and there is no downloadable Jira competitor anymore. In fact the speed of innovation is, pretty much, equal to the speed of m…
This here should trigger a red flag when you hear anyone say "The government should be run like a business". Businesses kill themselves all the time from the loss of institutional knowledge. We see stuff like "government spends X a year paying people Y to build almost no product Z". Instead, we're paying people Y to be ready to build Z when something goes terribly wrong like war.
I don't disagree with your larger point, but specifically in the scenario you outlined, the highly skilled, highly capable people that actually can produce product Z will not be satisfied with that kind of arrangement. All you will have is a daycare for bureaucracy barnacles.
Re: Boeing has started working on a 737 MAX replacement
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stepping stone to… what exactly? We couldn’t even handle a closed source experiment on earth (see biosphere 2), why would one on another celestial body fare any better?
> We couldn’t even handle a closed source experiment on earth (see biosphere 2), why would one on another celestial body fare any better? Because (1) the project would be designed seriously and (2) you don't need a completely closed loop. Just one that's mostly closed.
I'd argue that you need a loop that's capable of operating without Earth support for a significant length of time - vastly beyond what they managed with Biosphere 2 - for margin of safety reasons. Possibly also with a very different, scaled down design - maybe not growing all their own food, for example - because 13,000 square meters is maybe a bit much for a first off-planet base. And the best place to start working out how to do that is right here on Earth. Because it's an immediate cost reduction of at least one and probably several orders of magnitude, and because you can much more easily iterate on the design while you're still working out the kinks.
And then, once you've got it working well here on Earth, then you have a go at doing it on the moon.
This idea that the best place to get started on working out how to do these sorts of things is on the moon makes about as much sense as suggesting that the Space Shuttle program should have had astronauts rushing to work out the kinks of EVA missions in space instead of doing everything they could to test and practice procedures in swimming pools in an effort to learn as much as possible before you blow half a billion dollars on trying it out in orbit.