Remember that the biggest technical challenge to passenger supersonic flight is hacking Congress. People really don't like plutocrats in private jets cracking their windows and scaring their dog.
That's been the status quo since Concorde. The problem is it's hard to make a supersonic jet that has decent subsonic performance, you kind of have to pick one flight regime or the other to optimize for. And the market for business jets that you can only really fly transoceanic is small.
Ooooh that's so much better. I'm gonna use that from now on. The speed at which you can communicate and the other can understand your statement is very important. I wonder what other common phrases have shorter versions
Maybe, but I think we're all subject to the temptation to make bad arguments to get one over on people we disagree with. I can respect some things about someone and not respect other things. I guess this comes from being low-key terrified I've been as bamboozled as conservatives have, and I hope if I started parroting various propaganda someone here would have respect enough to tell me respectfully. But, also I get the internet makes cynics of us all.
Baldly accusing someone of bad faith is serious business, and I believe against the rules of this forum. It is way worse than calling out what you believe are bad arguments, as it's a slur against someone's integrity and character. Rayiner doesn't deserve that.
I might be misusing bad faith, but honestly I don't think so. I felt like trying to equate the Hunter Biden Laptop letter with the Iraq War was way too polemic to be good faith, designed solely for gotcha purposes rather than to continue or deepen a discussion. I think a good faith discussion would have had some standard by which they were categorizing Hunter Biden laptop letter signatories and wouldn't have equated the letter with all the intelligence fraud behind the Iraq War. I think it's not unreasonable to expect someone with Rayiner's platform on this site (and intelligence) to know that stuff. Maybe (probably?) you clearly take good/bad faith more seriously than I do; I think it's really easy to prioritize winning the argument or mindshare vs. participating in a discussion that benefits us all, and I think that comment had all the hallmarks of it. I don't think Rayiner's a bad person, just that he--like all of us--sometimes could do better (I'm also guilty of this, probably even recently who knows). I'm fine not agreeing on this, but I try pretty hard to criticize behavior and not people, and I think I've held to that standard here.
EDIT: I reread and I definitely gave the impression that Rayiner posts in bad faith a lot. I don't think that, and I apologize.
The real product Boom hopes to offer is regulatory capture, so that restrictions on supersonic business jets can be lifted. Then the bizjet itself can sell as a luxury status symbol.
If you want to go by top speeds, for the 787 (entered service 2011) it's Mach 0.9, for the A-350 (2015) it's 0.89, while for the 707-120 (1958) it's Mach 0.91. The 747 (1970) can go Mach 0.94.
Modern jets are built to fly slightly slower than early jetliners, both in normal operation and at top speed. The reason is fuel economy, but the difference is real.
You're saying planes have a top speed faster than their cruise speed; I'm saying it doesn't matter which of the two metrics you compare on, older jets are faster on both.
A specific Mach number is what airliner airframes are designed to fly at; it's absolutely the correct unit to talk about in this context. If airplane A is designed to cruise at 0.94 mach, it is faster than airplane B that cruises at 0.89 mach.
I don't understand the need for all the smoke and din in this argument thread. Old passenger jets flew a little faster than modern ones and that's okay!
They're not faster in any absolute sense, look at the wing sweep angle of new vs old jets or the fact that early low bypass ratio jets have a much higher exhaust velocity, the old jets are marginally faster by every metric.
Modern airplanes can exceed their cruising speed in a relative sense but older planes have a higher absolute maximum speed, as well as cruising speed.
Why is everyone trying to ackshewally this? The stat's are publicly available. Aircraft are optimized for a particular speed range and that impacts the designed cruising speed as well as Vs and VNE.
Here is a monster pilot forum thread on Concorde that ends up pulling in senior engineers, pilots, aerodynamicists and even a former flight attendant. They lovingly go over every detail of the plane's design and operation.
WARNING, serious temporal hazard. Do not click if you have work to do today or are supervising small children.
This is amazing. 10 minutes in I finally reached the entry labeled "Day 2" and closed the window out of self-defense. I'm going to send this link to annoying customer support clients to buy myself time.
Yeah, or create a CAPTCHA that is something like "what transmission components did this car need replaced before reaching Kinshasa" and hide your Tier 1 support reps behind it.
It's also riffed on in Treehouse of Horror on the Simpsons, but I am sad to say that episode now happened closer to the Twilight Zone episode than to today. We crossed that bridge in 2018.
Perspective is strange. I suspect we're not far from a time when a show such as the Brady Bunch will be as bizarre to the modern mind as the most severe Twilight Zone episode was in its time.
pretty sure the people having their irises scanned are the “tools” and the “humanity” it’s for are the other two thousand five hundred or so billionaires on the earth
Unfortunately this is a topic that attracts LARPers. Remember that if things get spicy, you are not going to settings nerd your way out of a bad interaction with the police.
Tech advice for legal and illegal protests is pretty much diametrically opposite, and advice for countries like the United States is much different than for somewhere like Egypt.
The fact that rubber-hose cryptanalysis exists doesn't mean that cryptography is useless. While settings nerding is indeed probably of limited use if you have a direct encounter with authorities, settings nerding can prevent being caught up in a dragnet search for, say, every cell service subscriber present at a protest gone sour, just as ubiquitous cryptography probably can't keep you safe from dedicated NSA attention but can protect against warrantless dragnet fishing expeditions.
As pointed out elsewhere, the line between legal and illegal protest is very blurry and can shift rapidly; if anything, the only way to be sure you're not going to a protest that could eventually be classed as illegal is to never go to a protest, regardless of how pure your intentions are.
What a lot of people don't realize is that a lot of the protests are organized by people who do not care if you get hurt, arrested, or die. In the US, Russian operatives organize a lot of the protests that turn violent. They also organize the counter protests.
In other countries, protests are often organized by foreign entities. The organizers will have good opsec, but everyone else is just (metaphorically) cannon fodder as far as the organizers are concerned.
It's been this way for decades. The Soviet Union organized protests in other countries for pretty much its entire existence. The US helped the Polish anti-authoritarian Solidarity movement and several others.
Huge shrug to that. Show me the evidence of the scale of it. 10%? 90%? There's an aspect of this reasoning that delegitimizes real protest movements, of which there are 'a lot', and of course there's a long history of 'a lot' of foreign geopolitical actors (including the US) of agitating actual grass-roots movements, muddying the waters even further.
At this point I think you're being less than honest with yourself. A group organizing 60 protests is organizing at scale because they want to create the perception of a movement.
> There's an aspect of this reasoning that delegitimizes real protest movements
Who cares? Our goal is to tell the truth, not to legitimize this or that. The fact is Russians organize a lot of protests in our country. And they're not the only ones who do.
> I think you're being less than honest with yourself
Are you sure that's me?
> A group organizing 60 protests is organizing at scale
Again: what scale? Are we talking all protests? Some? Half? What is "a lot"?
> > delegitimizes real protest movements
> Who cares?
You would, when the protest is about something that matters to you. The very thing that divides so-called Western democracy from the evil Russians is the right to organize, criticize, and protest against the government. When you can't do these things, you're living in an autocracy, something like, um... Russia?
I'll leave you to argue this one out with yourself.
Specifically, on that point they claimed "a lot of protests that turned violent," implying that Russian agitators were responsible for escalation. Unless the Russian agitators are members of the police, that seems very unlikely.
> What a lot of people don't realize is that a lot of the protests are organized by people who do not care if you get hurt, arrested, or die.
I mean, that’s kind of a given even for the protests that are legitimate. They really only happen when people reach a point of no return, and the organizers are more likely to be fanatics in the first place.
I don't think that's really true. If you made a list of all the protests in the US that happened in the last, say, 70 years and threw a dart I think you'd almost certainly hit a protest that was mostly performative. Essentially people LARPing, to use the parent commenter's term.
