will_asouka

shipped

Thanks. My original idea was some kind of 'Duolingo for TA'. Your suggestion would definitely be very relevant to a less gamey, more serious product. great thought.

It's under the chart, toggled off by default. 3rd comment so very obviously needs to be made more prominent, on it.

Thanks for surfacing. Up or down is a call on the stock price alone, nothing to do with the monkeys. Down means you think its close is lower in 5 days. The monkeys make a call up or down on the stock price too, and then their pnl is subtracted from yours.

So you can lose money on the trade and still go green because the monkeys lost more, or make money and go red because a monkey made more. The idea is it's your edge over random. Hope that makes sense and thanks for raising, will strive to make it clearer in-game.

Edit- to clarify Up/Down are a plain long or short, no options and no leverage. Low, medium and high are position sizing.

Thanks for flagging, summary is: Charts are from a seeded random draw. And the instinct is pretty spot on players state ~74% average confidence but hit ~54%. Accuracy is basically flat across confidence brackets. Up only strategy quietly beats the coin flipping monkeys (stocks generally go up and to the right) but players call down 43% of the time.

On there as a toggle off by default, under the chart. You're the second to not notice it so design feedback duly noted

Volume is on there but not shown until toggled on. Yeah making it blind on company and broader macro/market movements is what produces some of the the jeopardy, and outperforming the random monkeys turns out to be a bit tougher than some players might be expecting.

If I was going to add 3 more indicators, what should they be? And/or more history?

Appreciate you spreading the word, thanks

They're from a seeded random draw. Random S&P 500 stock, random 60-day window that's at least 12 months old, every player gets identical charts. Gemini writes the narrative vignette.

Your instinct is pretty spot on. 6,000+ calls in: players state ~74% average confidence but hit ~54%, and accuracy is basically flat across confidence brackets. Up only strategy quietly beats the coin flipping monkeys but players call down 43% of the time.

Nice idea, maybe when there's enough traction for weighted scoreboards I could enter some models

The config is currently if you're on desktop, you get text copied to the clipboard. On mobile, you get text + an image to share. Sharing points are 'Challenge a friend' and 'Share result' on the Performance Review, or you can share your career card from the Career Record. I added the image to the mobile shares as early users were screenshotting for x eg https://x.com/investingidiocy/status/2075471303809659212

Yes I think you're right, it's unclear. I'm hopeful the first reveal explains the dynamic as the player goes. Maybe something like- each chart shows 60 daily candles of a real S&P 500 stock, a past window with the ticker and dates hidden, you call if the stock closes higher or lower 5 days later?

Turnmills gone but Fabric still reppin

There's a new entrance to the Elizabeth line right on the market https://goo.gl/maps/xJ5c4NFaPZeZTQTK9

Ah you were saying serve ads on the flightdeck displays! Ok that's innovative- I'd recommend featuring big watches, mirrored sunglasses and divorce lawyers.

Where's the commercial benefit though? The cost of certification is huge so upgrades after initial certification don't happen unless the tech has big cost benefit (or safety, which is also cost at second order).

Hence A320 still running on Motorola 68000 of Sega Genesis etc fame.

And 737max having a top panel from the 60s.

Happens fairly regularly but for passenger issues rather than technical- medical emergencies and disruptive passengers usually.

Airlines have contracts with companies who provide a sat phone link to doctors who have the flight information and medical facilities at possible diversion airfields. Eg MedAire.

That would be amazing- thanks!

I'm an ex-military now furloughed airline pilot working on a flight planning tool to save trying to spot the needle in the haystack that is the current NOtice To AirMen system.

https://www.rapidplanapp.com/

Yes. Most approaches start from 2000-4000ft.

It's not the engines that would prove limiting to cruise speed at those altitudes, it's the aerodynamic design of the wing. Airliners are flying at between 78 to 86% of the speed of sound, you can't improve on that in a way that would be dramatically noticeable without a huge redesign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swept_wing#Subsonic_and_transo...

Many 757s have RR engines, but adding more power would allow take off with higher weight from shorter runways etc, not faster cruise.

Compact turbojet engines rather than high-bypass turbofans like modern airliners. Blended into the wing for less drag compared to underslung wing pods like the contemporary rival 707.

Autoland would definitely be preferable, a CAT III ILS would be ideal although you can still autoland off a CAT I beam. CAT IIIs tend to be limited to big airports due to cost and restrictions on the surrounding terrain and obstacles.

With autoland though, it's not just a simple button push. The aircraft needs to be descended around any terrain, navigated through any weather, and put into the landing configuration. If it'll be landing somewhere other than the planned destination, there's also a fair amount of reprogramming of the FMS.

The utility of autopilot to a pilot is comparable to that of cruise control to a driver, it takes away some of the drudgery. It is not robust enough to be unmonitored by a human. It can not make the many decisions that arise every day in aviation, such as if and how to avoid a thunderstorm.

Autoland needs ground equipment that is expensive to install and has stringent requirements on the surrounding topography that means many airports can not install it. It also takes 2 people's full attention to make the autoland happen in a consistently safe manner, it's not a case of pressing the LAND button and sitting back sipping tea. This video shows a bit of that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMydKAcqKCg

I thought this was making the point that WW2 is often reduced to a simple coherent narrative for the purpose of documentaries concerned more with their viewing figures than historical rigour/the truth.

These simplifications are distorting the mainstream collective memory of these events. This is particularly prevalent in the UK with regard to the First World War; a popular satirical comedy series has shaped a widely held view of mindless muddy bloodbath which does not do justice to the complexity of reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder_Goes_Forth).

It'd be nice to see the History Channel et al delve a little deeper.

Edit: I'm not totally sure if he's making this point or not frankly.

Flight deck doors are secure also, and the first action on attempted hijack is divert to the nearest suitable. It looks increasingly likely that one or both pilots remained in control.

Diego Garcia is a total red herring. Having space comms/surveillance doesn't equate to a super long range terristial radar capability. The Indian Ocean is a big place and curvature of the earth puts a hard limit on radar range (hence AWACS).

What does interest me is that the Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) cannot be disabled by pulling circuit breakers and would be picked up by satellite (SARSAT).

Many crucial functions rely on knowing if the aircraft is airborne or not. Weight-on-wheel sensors determine this.

Yes, inertial is good for worst case 5nm accuracy for 5 hours after an update from GNSS or ground based nav aids.