lsh123

https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_...

Cool video of the upper stage breakup from Turks and Caicos

tin foil hat, that's the only way :)

Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.

My $0.02:

- The stick-and-rudder skills aren’t hard and not the main reason people die. It’s the decision making that kills.

- The “faster to fly” than drive for me starts at about 3 hrs drive (wind, preflight time, takeoff / climb / landing time, deviations by ATC, etc). My indicated airspeed is roughly your true btw.

- Looks and feels like Cirrus with AI. I am missing barn doors for luggage and dogs; 200 kts cruise; 6 hrs with tip tanks; and gross to actually do it. I’ll stick with my Bonanza.

- Main problem you will face is insurance. It will be expensive if even obtainable for low experienced pilots.

With 10+% annual inflation in US in the last 2-3 years, 20+ P/E doesn’t look bad at all. Actually anything under 40 or so should be a strong buy.

Thanks for explanation. I will read the code to see how sharing works.

That’s not what I saw in the code but I didn’t spend much time so I might be wrong. I’ll check it more carefully later. But if this indeed is whole DB then it’s very limited use case.

Does the server reads specific rows from spam numbers DB or the whole database?

Evil server stores BOTH encrypted and plain text phone number in the same db row

Exactly, plain text phone number in the same db row

If we assume that server is “evil” then the server can store both PIR encrypted and plain text phone number in the same row in the database and when this row is read, simply log plain text phone number. What do I miss here? We can send PIR request and trust server not to do the above; or we can send plain text phone number and trust server not to log it — what’s the difference?

Since for telescope what matters is the surface size of the mirror (light collected is proportional to surface which is proportional to r^2), the 9m telescope is ~1.9x better than 6.5m one. This is a big difference. Not even counting the loses from a non perfect alignment of a folding mirror compared to a fixed one.

Not sure what exactly are you looking for. Bunch of info is on FAA website, for example:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html... https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/acf/medi...

DME (distance measuring equipment) is much simpler than LORAN. However, navigation computers can use multiple VOR / DME signals to compute position similar to LORAN or GPS. The problem is that DME / VOR are typically limited to 50-200nm (and even lower at lower altitudes) which requires extensive network to make it comparable to GPS / LORAN.

Botched go around killed many pilots. May be trimmed too much up for landing with flaps and didn’t push nose down hard enough. In general, touch and goes in a high performance planes is not a good idea (no time for checklists, runway length, and actually wrong muscle memory for real takeoffs / landings). RIP.

AI history starts from Newton gradient descent ;)

WhatsApp works for me

"You know nothing, Jon Snow"

I also got my license around that time with eb6, paper charts, VORs, NDB approaches, … and I don’t miss it a bit. Nostalgia - yes. But not missing it. I like to fly direct, I like to get LPV approach to 200 feet at an airport that would never ever ever would had had an ILS installed, I like traffic and weather on ADSB, I like my ForeFlight, and list goes on. The new technology helps to make flying safer. Yes, you need to know how to use all of this. And yes, it’s complicated. But the benefits are great too.

Same is true for aviation nav aids: VOR, ILS, … stations transmit their name in Morse code for identification.

I fly ifr nearly all the time with exception of local flights like a test flight after picking up the plane from annual (even then I am talking to tower or approach just in case). The main reason for me is that I like having someone (atc) watching over me, and that I don’t need to think much about airspace’s, tfrs, etc - I just do what atc tells me to do (within reasons ;) ).

The purpose of initial training is to teach the pilot how to fly a plane “by feel”. The best PC simulators still lack the details: How does wind sound change with airspeed and AOA? How does wing tell you it’s about to stall? How does the engine sound when you lean it? Etc. I learned to fly in a Citabria with basic VFR instruments (not even a six pack!), and my instructor closed instruments all the time teaching me not to rely on instruments while flying VFR. These lessons helped me a lot over years. I fly seaplanes in the summers that usually have basic vfr instruments only and it is a lot of fun.

Simulators are fantastic for learning instrument flying. I try to practice on a simulator at least once or twice a week - just a quick flight with 2-3 approaches to minimums. But it helps to keeps the scan going and also practice various failures in a safe environment.

1/ Visual vs instrument approach. The main difference in this case is separation requirements that ATC must provide. Specifically, under IFR rules ATC mus provide 3 miles / 500 feet altitude separation minimum. For visual approaches, the separation is responsibility of the pilots and this enables parallel runway landings at SFO with much shorter intervals (there is a version of parallel landings with instrument approaches at SFO but it discontinued during Covid and not resumed since AFAIK).

2/ The approach sequence is established long long long before arrival to the airport. The ATC controllers (approach and center) coordinate arrivals and create sequencing hundreds of miles from a large airport like SFO. The last minute Lufthansa request for an instrument approach would have forced dozens of planes to go into hold or fly vectors which creates a lot of work for everyone.

3/ SFO tower is NOT responsible for approaches and was not dealing with holding Lufthansa. This is responsibility of NorCal approach

4/ My personal take is that Lufthansa should have advised ATC that they need instrument approach much earlier (as soon as they got ATIS which would be 50-100 miles from airport). That would have enabled ATC to create a gap for them. Last minute request is a surprise nobody needs. The Lufthansa attitude afterwards is unacceptable. They were asking for preferential treatment (get us in and screw a couple dozen of other airplanes). They also should have communicated to ATC that they have 30 mins of fuel for hold and that would informed NorCal about time limits they are working with. Lastly, threatening ATC with a fuel emergency.... not nice, not nice at all. From my personal experience with ATC is that they are very accommodating but they don't like surprises. Tell them what you want early and controllers usually find ways to make it work by the time you get there. Have a last minute request? If ATC is not busy they will help you. If ATC is busy -- go to the back of the line. Which is exactly what happened here.

Don’t use ORM for performance critical DB operations and write SQL by hand might be another answer. Case in point: I recently improved performance of my email app by about 250x by replacing SwiftData with native SQLite database (and manual sql queries). The message data is under 1M rows range plus a lot of blobs/attachments (under 10MB each).

I smell Cisco…

+1 to the above. ATC is working to get *ALL* traffic going and if one pilot doesn’t want to do what everyone else is doing then this pilot goes to the end of the line. Company procedures or not, SFO parallel arrivals require visual separation in VMC. If you don’t like it, then hold and wait till ATC can squeeze you in without someone else landing on parallel. ATC has no obligation to “special treat” someone who didn’t declare emergency and force others to wait while someone takes their time flying ILS with (high) IFR separation requirements on a CAVU (celling and visibility unlimited) day.

No, the most important really is "A source close to Altman”

I hope IRS is watching this ;)

I can’t speak for everyone, but the company I work for takes this very seriously and does its best to comply with the law. Said that, all of it is very complicated. Most (if not all) privacy problems I observed so far are caused not by malice but by incompetence. And those get fixed as soon as found.