|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 29, 2021 22:16:29 GMT
[ Snip ] Is b-sharp in trouble too? Will dumb sh_its be offended as well? In Washington D.C. that appears to be a protected class.  Good point.  |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 30, 2021 21:40:10 GMT
A comment online:
"A scene from the modern psychiatrist’s office…
“Doctor, my son has recently begun to announce to all and sundry that he is Napoleon, Emperor of France. What can be done?”
“Fortunately, we have made many advances in psychiatry in recent years. The first order of business is for you to begin addressing him as Your Majesty.
Then we’ll check him into a hospital, where breathtaking new advances in surgical technique will be able to reduce his height to 5’ 2”.”"
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 31, 2021 13:10:02 GMT
From a photographer friend:  |
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jan 31, 2021 14:35:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 31, 2021 15:45:37 GMT
I don't think that the hedge fund game players realize how much they are viscerally hated by 'the people'. Playing clever games these 'suits' can get more money in 20 seconds -invented out of the air - than an entire town in the midwest earn in a year. Getting the game wrong and that entire town finds their mortgages were all just foreclosed. I think that the townie liberals are in the same virtual world and don't understand what the rest of the country is doing. This will not end well |
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jan 31, 2021 16:12:31 GMT
I don't think that the hedge fund game players realize how much they are viscerally hated by 'the people'. Playing clever games these 'suits' can get more money in 20 seconds -invented out of the air - than an entire town in the midwest earn in a year. Getting the game wrong and that entire town finds their mortgages were all just foreclosed. I think that the townie liberals are in the same virtual world and don't understand what the rest of the country is doing. This will not end well It’s the unexpected, inexplicable thing that always bites you in the a$$. This could be epic...or just a blip. I’ve always heard the casino owners don’t like card counters🤓 www.zerohedge.com/markets/reddit-preparing-unleash-worlds-biggest-short-squeeze-silver |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 1, 2021 1:20:06 GMT
Entertaining site. A democratic (not the party) hedge fund? Will they quip with such vigor on the gallows? Of course, if they can drop a biggie, I can't help but cheer. https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l9gtjo/had_no_idea_that_citadel_had_its_hands_in_so_many/ linkhttps://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l9of92/robinhood_is_toastfidelity_massive_transfer_volume/ https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l9hiza/listen_up_when_elizabeth_warren_says_on_live/ |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 1, 2021 14:52:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 1, 2021 15:05:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 1, 2021 16:00:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 1, 2021 22:38:57 GMT
Reminded me of this ... Back in the 1970s, automation was creeping into many of the systems associated with large airliners. One day after the boffins and engineers had laboured mightily for many weeks, a fully-loaded Convair 880 took off from Heathrow bound for New York. The cabin crew did the normal safety demonstration and the aircraft taxied out to the active runway, lined up and took off in the usual manner. As the Convair climbed through about 26,000 feet, an announcement came from the flight-deck:-
"Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome onboard this the first fully-automated transatlantic flight from London to New York. So advanced are the automatic systems onboard this specially-equipped Convair 880, there is no actual flight crew onboard in the flight-deck, the door to which is therefore locked. The entire flight-plan, with all imaginable contingencies, has been programmed into quadruplicated flight management computers, all backup systems are duplicated and there is a fifth, entirely separate set of automatic systems in case of any unforeseen problems. So relax, sit back, enjoy the cabin service from our excellent crew, and again we hasten to assure any of you who may feel slightly apprehensive about this flight that nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing can go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ..." Lots more here: Flying Jokes |
|
|
|
Post by youngjasper on Feb 2, 2021 2:06:25 GMT
Reminded me of this ... Back in the 1970s, automation was creeping into many of the systems associated with large airliners. One day after the boffins and engineers had laboured mightily for many weeks, a fully-loaded Convair 880 took off from Heathrow bound for New York. The cabin crew did the normal safety demonstration and the aircraft taxied out to the active runway, lined up and took off in the usual manner. As the Convair climbed through about 26,000 feet, an announcement came from the flight-deck:-
"Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome onboard this the first fully-automated transatlantic flight from London to New York. So advanced are the automatic systems onboard this specially-equipped Convair 880, there is no actual flight crew onboard in the flight-deck, the door to which is therefore locked. The entire flight-plan, with all imaginable contingencies, has been programmed into quadruplicated flight management computers, all backup systems are duplicated and there is a fifth, entirely separate set of automatic systems in case of any unforeseen problems. So relax, sit back, enjoy the cabin service from our excellent crew, and again we hasten to assure any of you who may feel slightly apprehensive about this flight that nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing can go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ..." Lots more here: Flying JokesThat is funny, but not far from reality! There have been and are great advances in the automation-of-flying arena. (I know something of this.) BUT fully automated flight for the public with FAA approval is a LONG way from implementation. Even fully automatic autos are a difficult front. Add the third and more complex dimension of the Z-axis, and then think about how willing a flying public would be to accept that. Not. The technology is very close - perhaps even there for the most part, but even with that significant advance in technology there needs to be FAA approval, and THAT would be some very heavy lifting -- even after automobiles have it perfected. Why? Just approval of PROVEN technology takes a minimum of three years for FAA approval, and that is assuming you have your act together, everything has already been proven for the most part, all systems of the aircraft (design, aerodynamics, power, pressurization, etc.) are already certified, and the technology is flawless. The issues with the 737 MAX are great examples of why this is so difficult and why the FAA is taking a much more cautious stance on reliance on technology to fly aircraft after the issues with the crashes of the 737 MAX. That is a whole different issue. Automation on aircraft that are aerodynamically sound without the need for input from technology is much easier than automation on aircraft that rely on technology (software) to make the aircraft aerodynamically sound. If an aircraft can glide easily and safely without input from technology, it is way ahead of something that relies on sensor input to make it fly (glide - a rock can technically "fly.")
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 2, 2021 4:09:03 GMT
Reminded me of this ... Back in the 1970s, automation was creeping into many of the systems associated with large airliners. One day after the boffins and engineers had laboured mightily for many weeks, a fully-loaded Convair 880 took off from Heathrow bound for New York. The cabin crew did the normal safety demonstration and the aircraft taxied out to the active runway, lined up and took off in the usual manner. As the Convair climbed through about 26,000 feet, an announcement came from the flight-deck:-
"Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome onboard this the first fully-automated transatlantic flight from London to New York. So advanced are the automatic systems onboard this specially-equipped Convair 880, there is no actual flight crew onboard in the flight-deck, the door to which is therefore locked. The entire flight-plan, with all imaginable contingencies, has been programmed into quadruplicated flight management computers, all backup systems are duplicated and there is a fifth, entirely separate set of automatic systems in case of any unforeseen problems. So relax, sit back, enjoy the cabin service from our excellent crew, and again we hasten to assure any of you who may feel slightly apprehensive about this flight that nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing can go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ..." Lots more here: Flying JokesThat is funny, but not far from reality! There have been and are great advances in the automation-of-flying arena. (I know something of this.) BUT fully automated flight for the public with FAA approval is a LONG way from implementation. Even fully automatic autos are a difficult front. Add the third and more complex dimension of the Z-axis, and then think about how willing a flying public would be to accept that. Not. The technology is very close - perhaps even there for the most part, but even with that significant advance in technology there needs to be FAA approval, and THAT would be some very heavy lifting -- even after automobiles have it perfected. Why? Just approval of PROVEN technology takes a minimum of three years for FAA approval, and that is assuming you have your act together, everything has already been proven for the most part, all systems of the aircraft (design, aerodynamics, power, pressurization, etc.) are already certified, and the technology is flawless. The issues with the 737 MAX are great examples of why this is so difficult and why the FAA is taking a much more cautious stance on reliance on technology to fly aircraft after the issues with the crashes of the 737 MAX. That is a whole different issue. Automation on aircraft that are aerodynamically sound without the need for input from technology is much easier than automation on aircraft that rely on technology (software) to make the aircraft aerodynamically sound. If an aircraft can glide easily and safely without input from technology, it is way ahead of something that relies on sensor input to make it fly (glide - a rock can technically "fly.")
In actual fact fully automated aircraft have been flying for some years. Way back in the 80's there were aircraft that could fly a complete sortie automatically - as you can tell from the language they were military. With current generation airliners the crew will manually take off and at 150ft or so give it to the aircraft automation. They will not normally 'fly' the aircraft again until around a mile or less from touchdown and maybe not even then with a Cat3B landing system. It is not uncommon for a pilot on long haul flights to have no more than a few minutes actual flying the aircraft in a month of transoceanic operations. This in its own way brings problems. The aircraft now have become like self driving cars where the driver only needs be involved for parking and for leaving the parking spot. The aircraft was developed by crews that to remain in the car analogy are happy with stick shift and double declutching and heel and toe and no antiskid or servo assisted brakes. Indeed - they enjoy the back to basics control. Now lets say you have an experienced captain and he has tens of thousands of hours flight time but almost none flying the aircraft and even then the pilot is just telling the aircraft what to do and not actively controlling the flight of the aircraft. Now we have a problem if something goes wrong - as if something fails that captain will spend time trying to recover the failed system rather than switch it all off and go completely manual. The aircraft was approved by test pilots who would immediately go into manual mode but the new crews cannot do that as they never do that. This is the problem and it goes back to the system design. You _can_ design aircraft that can deal with all the potential problems, but that costs money. Flight Management Computers were initially meant to take over the 'drudgery' of long haul flight so the software was designed to give the aircraft back to the crew if something went wrong. They have got a little better now but they still drop the 'otherwise case' back to the crew. However, that doesn't help if the crew cannot pick things back up. This is a major issue and will bite the self driving car market too. Hard to comprehend now but imagine a time when steering is not second nature to drivers. There's lots more but it is a blend of systems engineering and human factors plus the extra cost of building and certifying a 100% automated aircraft vs the cost of certifying a 100% human crew and their pay and pension for decades. The two Boeing 737/max that crashed had a similar single point of failure fault in angle of attack indication but were completely flyable, but not by the crew that they had on board. The changes made ensure that the automatics do not fail the same way by removing the single point of failure and improving the software for autotrimming for control column feel. I am more old school I would have trained the pilots  |
|
|
|
Post by youngjasper on Feb 2, 2021 14:18:49 GMT
Naut, all your points are spot-on. There is no getting around solid pilot training and good airmanship. Therein is a negative of too much automation - over-reliance on the automation and pilots with a lot of hours but not much experience actually flying.
BTW, Garmin has a unit that will auto-land the airplane in an emergency and even finds the closest airport to land based on a number of factors.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 2, 2021 16:23:15 GMT
Naut, all your points are spot-on. There is no getting around solid pilot training and good airmanship. Therein is a negative of too much automation - over-reliance on the automation and pilots with a lot of hours but not much experience actually flying. BTW, Garmin has a unit that will auto-land the airplane in an emergency and even finds the closest airport to land based on a number of factors. Yes before I retired I was working on an automated 'nearest suitable airport' system that anyone could access. |
|
