There's a difference between a small percentage needing something and a small percentage wanting something, though. If all wheelchair users could turn off their handicap at any time with no consequence, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a wheelchair ramp anywhere.
If all JavaScript blockers users could turn on JavaScript at any time without consequences to their privacy and security, you'd be hard pressed to find JavaScript blockers as well.
If they're really concerned about privacy and security, their machine would be air-gapped and the web wouldn't even be available as an attack vector. What it really is though is a superiority complex fulfilling their need to be "better" then filthy JS developers who don't code in Rust and Scala.
People are yelling about Microsoft hypocrisy after they made noise on their feel-good achieve-nothing move at Github.
In my opinion, people have been complaining about the change too much, and the hypocrisy too little. The PR was probably positive, when it shouldn't be.
They have come out to say some very good things, as you say. But is it still principled if it only comes right after failing to win a big contract to do the opposite? Not as clear
What do you mean? The Japanese bullet train is maglev, and frankly I was under the assumption that almost all "bullet" trains need to use maglev to get those kinds of speeds.
Bullet trains are sadly not maglev. They actually don't go _that_ fast (180-200MPH-ish is common), but look incredibly sleek compared to European high speed trains due to the aerodynamics of dealing with the large number of tunnels that Japan has.
"In 2009, the Maglev system was approved and entered commercial construction. The linear Chuo Shinkansen line is planned to link Tokyo and Nagoya by the year 2027."
Did you read the article? It's not saying that it's a soap opera because it's not a tech company, it's saying it because of the crazy family that runs it and the questionable financials around it.
Even if you only develop for iOS at the start, the nice part of RN is the promise of simplified porting. So while the number of people targeting multiple platforms at the start may be low, the number who would consider it "on the roadmap" (or possibly on the roadmap depending on the app's success) is pretty high in my experience.
> So Boeing produced a dynamically unstable airframe, the 737 Max. That is big strike No. 1. Boeing then tried to mask the 737’s dynamic instability with a software system. Big strike No. 2. Finally, the software relied on systems known for their propensity to fail .... Big strike No. 3.
The article definitely does partially blame engineering.
We don't know the MAX is inherently unstable. That's still conjecture at this point. MCAS may have altered fight characteristics to match older 737 to avoid additional pilot training. If the MAX is inherently unstable, then this scandal is much bigger and far reaching.
I heard the MCAS was required to avoid a situation where the MAX, after reaching a certain pitch, would continue pitch up into a stall even if both pilots released the yoke. I don't know if that's considered "inherently unstable", but this is against FAA regulations for any commercial airplane from what I heard. That's probably a big reason why Boeing made it so difficult to completely disable the MCAS system.
My understanding is that MCAS altered fight characteristics not only to match older 737s and avoid additional pilot training. MCAS altered fight characteristics so the FAA would approve the MAX as a commercial aircraft period. The fact they could match older 737s flight characteristics for a more speedy approval from the FAA was just gravy.
The article is making the point that the MAX is inherently unstable because of the larger engines causing the "pitch up" problem with an increasing angle-of-attack:
> Pitch changes with increasing angle of attack, however, are quite another thing. An airplane approaching an aerodynamic stall cannot, under any circumstances, have a tendency to go further into the stall. This is called “dynamic instability,” and the only airplanes that exhibit that characteristic—fighter jets—are also fitted with ejection seats.
So arguably the existence of MCAS in the first place indicates that the aircraft design is dynamically unstable (otherwise MCAS wouldn't have been necessary).
There are several respected industry professionals that believe the MAX is inherently unstable (and maybe they have insider information...) but this is not considered "fact" right now. (AFAIK)
MCAS was needed to maintain original 737 type specification which allows 737 pilots to fly any 737... significant operational flexibility & cost savings for airlines.
I'm not in any way an authority when it comes to aeroplanes.
However, my understanding is that the reason why MCAS was needed to maintain the original 737 specification is because of the "pitch up" behaviour on increased AOA (which is what is being described as "dynamic instability" in TFA).
The video you linked doesn't disagree with this -- though it's phrased as being primarily there to "replicate the same feel as earlier versions of the 737, by giving a little bit of nose-down trim". The article claims that being dynamically unstable means that at high-AOA you get nose-up lift (I'm not a pilot or aeronautics expert, so this might be an incorrect definition -- but I've not seen anyone disputing that definition nor disputing it's against FAA guidelines).
If you need an additional system to "replicate the feel" of not having nose-up lift at high-AOA that tells me that your plane design must therefore have nose-up lift at high-AOA. The guy in the video then goes on to say that it's an inherently stable design, but he doesn't really qualify it (other than saying that all other 737s are stable designs) and goes on to say that "the nose goes a little bit light".
Obviously we should hold back judgement until we know all the facts, but "the 737 MAX is an inherently stable design" is not someone holding back judgement.
But wasn't this explained in the article, already. Dynamically stable plane doesn't aggressively rotate along any of its axis, for example, when you increase or decrease throttle. The location of MAX engines generates additional forces to increase pitch when engine power is increased, and even more so when the plane is already pitched high. Earlier 737's could do without MCAS because they were designed with smaller engines in lower locations in order to be dynamically stable.
You are referring to thrust asymmetry, not dynamic stability. Thrust asymmetry is actually not that different between MAX 8 and NG. MAX 8 engines have more thrust, but they are also mounted higher (closer to the centerline), reducing torque.
Dynamic stability is a tendency of the plane that flies straight and level to maintain this straight and level flight. MAX 8 still has this property, MCAS or not.
