Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | vdqtp3's commentslogin

> adoption is low for business travel – is it too expensive

Yes. Most companies won't even spring for business/first class, which is 10-20% the cost of a charter. Unless your time is both limited and worth 4 digits per hour, it's not worth it.


Refusing to return escaped slaves used to be illegal. Inter-racial marriage used to be illegal. Gay marriage and even gay relationships used to be illegal. Crime is not necessarily wrong.


I'm sure there's a municipality somewhere where that's a viable argument, but in mine, 2020 called and wants that one back.


Composites in that style are also typically very durable, often more than the original material. I think GP was more likely talking about constructions of pressboard and plywood which is (charitably) less durable.


Plywood can be extremely durable, in many cases more than whole boards.


20 people out of 350MM is pretty damn safe, even factoring for the relatively low numbers of people who actually interact with cattle. We as modern humans no longer have any sense of proportion when it comes to safety.


> There's a Zero Retries article recently with a critical review of meshtastic

Do you have a link? I went through recent ZT issues and didn't find what you're referring to


My mental poster child for "poor" is exactly this person. She had three kids (all in public school), lived in section 8 and worked part-time bagging groceries. The kids had nothing nice, clothes were all hand-me-down or donations with holes in them from being so old. No car, no health care, horrible dentistry to the point of becoming an emergency.

They had a bigger TV than my middle class family, a premium channel package, and ordered pizza not infrequently. I get all the arguments, but when you're working 20 hours a week and living off food stamps and subsidized housing you don't get to have luxuries AND complain about being poor. The person described in TFA as being poor is rare at best.


> you don't get to have luxuries AND complain about being poor.

Some people might be inclined to try to drag you for the first half of that statement, and honestly I'm inclined to try to not judge poor people for what I usually assume is one or two small splurges that raise their moods just high enough to not slit their wrists, you know?

But I think the second half of the sentence is kinda fair. IF they are self-aware that they are choosing to divert money from more important things, it's their life and I don't really want to pass judgment. If they whine constantly that "the system" is keeping them down while continuously making "unforced" errors with their money, that's when it makes me start to roll my eyes.


I don't think I would criticize those decisions for someone working 40+ hours a week either, even if they are on assistance programs. I think it's foolish but you kind of get to make foolish decisions to a degree when you're putting in the effort. It was the combination of all of the factors.


TBF, the industrial revolution started 250 years ago and the Merlin ceased production 75 years ago and has almost literally nothing in common with the Trent - not design, metallurgy, thermodynamic cycle, fuel...

Calling the referenced achievements ancient history isn't an unreasonable take, despite current successes.


> stationary target that's 35,000 km long

and what, 12" wide? 24"? that's still very difficult to target


In general, the more tensile strength you want in a cable made of a given material, the thicker you need to make that cable. Now sure, we can imagine whatever magical properties we want of our space elevator cable material, since no known material that could do this exists anyway. But it's far more likely that you'd need a cable that's a kilometer or more in diameter to achieve the tensile strength needed to support its weight at 35000 km of length, than it is to be a few inches wide.


On the contrary - commercial aviation does aim for perfection.


A cross controlled stall can result in a spin (which is probably what you mean by flip upside down). The rudder changes aren't inadvertent, they're intentionally opposite the aileron input - the goal is essentially to fly somewhat sideways, so the fuselage induces drag.

In general forward slips are safe, but yes you have to make sure you keep the nose down/speed up. There's little in aviation that isn't dangerous if you aren't careful.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: