Yes. The people who work hard (or at least see others work hard) and see no return believe success is 100% luck. Those who work hard and see a return believe it is 100% merit. Those who don't work and see a return anyway believe it is natural superiority.
People are crap at estimating distributions. Our brains seek simple, all-or-nothing direct cause and effect, usually based on biased sampling.
This is true, but I don't think it invalidates the premise. You must be prepared in order to have success, and merit can improve your chances, but they're still chances.
I think the real problem is that we conflate success with merit. The successful have some merit, but usually no more than a great many other people. They were simply the lucky random draws.
Reading books directed at business people reminds me of Skinner's paper on superstition in the pigeon. This successful person rises at three am, clips his toenails before breakfast, and deletes every second e-mail, therefore these must be keys to success!
The cost to run an existing coal plant, especially with subsidies, is less than it is to build a new solar or wind plant, so the existing ones keep chugging. But virtually all new development in the US was exactly what the OP said was the cheapest: wind, solar and natural gas.
Development to western levels improves forest cover. Most of the western nations are adding forest, not removing it. Developed countries with sane agricultural practices don't do things like slash and burn.
Most developing countries are located where non-carbon energy sources, particularly solar, are quite practical, and again, they're mostly taking that route and skipping the dirty industrial path the west went through. Developing clean energy sources also eliminates things like household coal, wood and charcoal heating and cooking fires.
It's not as simple as development = more energy = more carbon emissions.
Lincoln also didn't say "okay, let's stop enslaving people going forward, and eventually the number of slaves will naturally drop until we're slave free!"
The PW1100G and CFM LEAP are pretty similar in size. The A320 can use either. The LEAP 1B from the 737 MAX is actually smaller than the LEAP 1A used on the A320 NEO.
The problem is that the 737 was designed to sit very low to the ground. It makes loading and unloading baggage a lot easier, and is a major selling point. On the original 737 it wasn't a big deal because the low bypass turbofans of the era were small diameter. Newer planes had to use high bypass turbofans, and actually needed specially designed engines with the supporting bits moved around so they could be flattened at the bottom to still clear the ground. Modern engines are even higher bypass, with bigger diameters, so Boeing had to shift them forward and raise them up.
Americans can be *very* loyal to Boeing. Kind of like the few people who still insist GM or Ford are the greatest, even though Japanese manufacturers make far better vehicles.;)
Now if you want to get Canadians riled up, say something bad about Bombardier... no most of us hate them too.
True. They might have trouble selling new planes though. The 737 is their bread and butter... would you order a fleet of them for your airline when Airbus has a direct replacement that hasn't been the subject of a shitstorm?
The new 777 might get off to a slow start too, especially since it's got even more new features. The 737's problems seem to stem from sticking giant engines on a 1960s design that's major feature is how low to to the ground it is. The new 777 has folding wings.
You quoted the sentence that tells you precisely how the distribution is defined: it's a uniform distribution (same value everywhere) over the perfect circle that is their approximation of the planet's orbit.
The distribution of a planet's location is not uniform for elliptical orbits. Copernicus's second law is more or less a statement of the actual relation: an orbit sweeps out equal areas in equal time. You can convert that into a speed at each point in the orbit, and the actual probability distribution is the normalized inverse of the speed (you're more likely to find the planet at parts of the orbit where it's moving more slowly).
For a perfect circle, which they assume, equal areas in equal time means uniform speed, so uniform distribution.
You're on the right track, but you didn't go far enough.
If you're travelling to a planet, launching a probe, whatever, you don't give a crap about distance, paths that don't clip the sun, or closest approaches. You can about delta-v. And delta-v, particularly with their simplifying assumptions, is proportional to the difference between the two planets' orbital radii.
Not when you make their simplifying assumptions: perfectly circular orbits with zero inclination. As stated in the summary. It's not even an integral. It's the circumference of a circle.
I guess I'm not following then. The poster you replied to stated that aircraft safety systems like MCAS should disable themselves if redundant sensor data doesn't match. You noted that the absence of the safety system could cause a crash and that it's difficult to detect a fault angle of attack sensor.
It's not difficult to detect a faulty sensor when you have redundant ones and their readings don't match. In fact, Boeing has implemented precisely what the OP suggested, plus adding cross checks from other aircraft sensors.
Sorry, I should know by now to write *very precisely* on Slashdot. The purpose of the MCAS is to assist pilots to recover from high angle of attack situations that could lead to stalls. Actually, the purpose is to compensate for thrust characteristics that produce a net positive pitch moment, but the former sounds better.
I fly hang gliders. One of the crazy things we do is tie ourselves to pickup trucks and let them tow us up into the sky like big kites. While you're under tow, it's like riding an elevator, and VERY nose up pitch. Hitting the clamp release and going airborne out of the bed of a moving truck is an experience.
As a safety precaution, there's a weak link between the tow line and the tow bridle. It's designed to break if the force gets too high, such as if you lose control and lock out. If you've flown a kite, this is where, in strong winds, they sometimes just decide to flip over and dive straight at the ground.
Anyway, sometimes the weak link breaks for other reasons. I broke one once, crossing a wind shear boundary. When you lose the tow during dynamic ascent you're instantly in a very severe stall. It feels like free fall. It was one of the scariest things that's ever happened to me. You desperately want to *not* be heading for the ground, but the only way to recover is to pull in and dive to pick up speed.
Fortunately my instructor insisted that we practice stall recovery at high altitude and in calm conditions.
I think he was probably referring to the Air France A330. Unfortunately for his point, the problem there was genuine pilot error after the software did the right thing.
"The problem with your A is that if one of the sensors failed in a way that prevented it from detecting a stall situation, MCAS would not intervene, and the plane could crash."
That's not really the way it works. When a sensor mismatch is detected, an alarm should sound (it does for lots of OTHER multi-sensor or redundant systems) alerting the pilots that there's a problem and a safety device has been disabled. The pilots then need to make sure they fly the plane safely.
Airliners aren't supposed to stall, ever. It spills the passengers' drinks and might make them puke. The MCAS is there to assist pilots in recovering from a really bad situation that should never have happened.
Absolutely. To be clear, my post was sarcastic. A plane that tries to fly itself into the ground needs to be fixed. There is a "training issue," but that issue is Boeing purposely omitting information about what turned out to be a critical backup safety procedure.
Waiting a couple of days for some initial information from the Ethiopian crash before taking drastic action was probably a wise decision, but announcements that "the plane is safe" weren't. The FAA's international reputation is taking the hit now, as it probably should.
Yes, of course. Realizing that, PayPal is awfully convenient, and Facebook has a captive audience of lazy people who don't want to use multiple apps. As horrible as it is, this might end up being a big hit. Until they get hacked and lose all the money.
Technically this system is supposed to assist the pilots in avoiding or recovering from a stall, compensating for poorer aerodynamics on the MAX. It might have gotten approved without the normal redundancies because it only assists the pilot. I know a few other industries where that excuse flies....
Yes it's news! These parents were cheating the system! They paid someone to fake some records and deliver a few individual bribes instead of engaging in the time honoured system of institutional bribery you describe.
How are elite universities supposed to maintain their campuses, endowments and football teams in the face of increasing cocaine costs when these upstarts are bribing admissions officers with thousands of dollars instead of the whole institution with tens of millions of dollars?
There definitely seems to be more to it. The MAX series is apparently unstable at high angles of attack due to the change in placement of the engines, which is why the MCAS was added in the first place. Perhaps the system is able to produce a pitch excursion large enough to put the plane into the unstable regime.
Anyway, the MAX has suddenly acquired a pretty bad safety record. It might be really bad luck, but probably not.
Yes... journalism math. Decimal points are just decoration.
I don't think it would be easily measurable though. It's easy enough to measure sound in water at 15 km distance (or 150 km) but it would be very difficult to determine whether the average direction had changed since the wave would have dispersed so much.
when their aircraft exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground
Just in case you missed it.
At least on on the Indonesian flight, it appears that a hardware sensor failed, causing the software system to act inappropriately and a backup manual override procedure wasn't part of the training course. There's lots of failure to go around, at the hardware, software, and training levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. The people who work hard (or at least see others work hard) and see no return believe success is 100% luck. Those who work hard and see a return believe it is 100% merit. Those who don't work and see a return anyway believe it is natural superiority.
People are crap at estimating distributions. Our brains seek simple, all-or-nothing direct cause and effect, usually based on biased sampling.
This is true, but I don't think it invalidates the premise. You must be prepared in order to have success, and merit can improve your chances, but they're still chances.
I think the real problem is that we conflate success with merit. The successful have some merit, but usually no more than a great many other people. They were simply the lucky random draws.
Reading books directed at business people reminds me of Skinner's paper on superstition in the pigeon. This successful person rises at three am, clips his toenails before breakfast, and deletes every second e-mail, therefore these must be keys to success!
Try one of the static site generators, like Hugo.
Soooo much nicer. It works the way you expect as a real coder too: you write your stuff, compile it, debug, then upload.
They are:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...
The cost to run an existing coal plant, especially with subsidies, is less than it is to build a new solar or wind plant, so the existing ones keep chugging. But virtually all new development in the US was exactly what the OP said was the cheapest: wind, solar and natural gas.
Development to western levels improves forest cover. Most of the western nations are adding forest, not removing it. Developed countries with sane agricultural practices don't do things like slash and burn.
Most developing countries are located where non-carbon energy sources, particularly solar, are quite practical, and again, they're mostly taking that route and skipping the dirty industrial path the west went through. Developing clean energy sources also eliminates things like household coal, wood and charcoal heating and cooking fires.
It's not as simple as development = more energy = more carbon emissions.
Lincoln also didn't say "okay, let's stop enslaving people going forward, and eventually the number of slaves will naturally drop until we're slave free!"
The PW1100G and CFM LEAP are pretty similar in size. The A320 can use either. The LEAP 1B from the 737 MAX is actually smaller than the LEAP 1A used on the A320 NEO.
The problem is that the 737 was designed to sit very low to the ground. It makes loading and unloading baggage a lot easier, and is a major selling point. On the original 737 it wasn't a big deal because the low bypass turbofans of the era were small diameter. Newer planes had to use high bypass turbofans, and actually needed specially designed engines with the supporting bits moved around so they could be flattened at the bottom to still clear the ground. Modern engines are even higher bypass, with bigger diameters, so Boeing had to shift them forward and raise them up.
Americans can be *very* loyal to Boeing. Kind of like the few people who still insist GM or Ford are the greatest, even though Japanese manufacturers make far better vehicles. ;)
Now if you want to get Canadians riled up, say something bad about Bombardier... no most of us hate them too.
True. They might have trouble selling new planes though. The 737 is their bread and butter... would you order a fleet of them for your airline when Airbus has a direct replacement that hasn't been the subject of a shitstorm?
The new 777 might get off to a slow start too, especially since it's got even more new features. The 737's problems seem to stem from sticking giant engines on a 1960s design that's major feature is how low to to the ground it is. The new 777 has folding wings.
True for two-parameter distributions. Shocking, you need to know both parameters.
It's not true for one parameter distributions.
You quoted the sentence that tells you precisely how the distribution is defined: it's a uniform distribution (same value everywhere) over the perfect circle that is their approximation of the planet's orbit.
The distribution of a planet's location is not uniform for elliptical orbits. Copernicus's second law is more or less a statement of the actual relation: an orbit sweeps out equal areas in equal time. You can convert that into a speed at each point in the orbit, and the actual probability distribution is the normalized inverse of the speed (you're more likely to find the planet at parts of the orbit where it's moving more slowly).
For a perfect circle, which they assume, equal areas in equal time means uniform speed, so uniform distribution.
You're on the right track, but you didn't go far enough.
If you're travelling to a planet, launching a probe, whatever, you don't give a crap about distance, paths that don't clip the sun, or closest approaches. You can about delta-v. And delta-v, particularly with their simplifying assumptions, is proportional to the difference between the two planets' orbital radii.
Not when you make their simplifying assumptions: perfectly circular orbits with zero inclination. As stated in the summary. It's not even an integral. It's the circumference of a circle.
I guess I'm not following then. The poster you replied to stated that aircraft safety systems like MCAS should disable themselves if redundant sensor data doesn't match. You noted that the absence of the safety system could cause a crash and that it's difficult to detect a fault angle of attack sensor.
It's not difficult to detect a faulty sensor when you have redundant ones and their readings don't match. In fact, Boeing has implemented precisely what the OP suggested, plus adding cross checks from other aircraft sensors.
Sorry, I should know by now to write *very precisely* on Slashdot. The purpose of the MCAS is to assist pilots to recover from high angle of attack situations that could lead to stalls. Actually, the purpose is to compensate for thrust characteristics that produce a net positive pitch moment, but the former sounds better.
I fly hang gliders. One of the crazy things we do is tie ourselves to pickup trucks and let them tow us up into the sky like big kites. While you're under tow, it's like riding an elevator, and VERY nose up pitch. Hitting the clamp release and going airborne out of the bed of a moving truck is an experience.
As a safety precaution, there's a weak link between the tow line and the tow bridle. It's designed to break if the force gets too high, such as if you lose control and lock out. If you've flown a kite, this is where, in strong winds, they sometimes just decide to flip over and dive straight at the ground.
Anyway, sometimes the weak link breaks for other reasons. I broke one once, crossing a wind shear boundary. When you lose the tow during dynamic ascent you're instantly in a very severe stall. It feels like free fall. It was one of the scariest things that's ever happened to me. You desperately want to *not* be heading for the ground, but the only way to recover is to pull in and dive to pick up speed.
Fortunately my instructor insisted that we practice stall recovery at high altitude and in calm conditions.
I think he was probably referring to the Air France A330. Unfortunately for his point, the problem there was genuine pilot error after the software did the right thing.
"The problem with your A is that if one of the sensors failed in a way that prevented it from detecting a stall situation, MCAS would not intervene, and the plane could crash."
That's not really the way it works. When a sensor mismatch is detected, an alarm should sound (it does for lots of OTHER multi-sensor or redundant systems) alerting the pilots that there's a problem and a safety device has been disabled. The pilots then need to make sure they fly the plane safely.
Airliners aren't supposed to stall, ever. It spills the passengers' drinks and might make them puke. The MCAS is there to assist pilots in recovering from a really bad situation that should never have happened.
Absolutely. To be clear, my post was sarcastic. A plane that tries to fly itself into the ground needs to be fixed. There is a "training issue," but that issue is Boeing purposely omitting information about what turned out to be a critical backup safety procedure.
Waiting a couple of days for some initial information from the Ethiopian crash before taking drastic action was probably a wise decision, but announcements that "the plane is safe" weren't. The FAA's international reputation is taking the hit now, as it probably should.
Yes, of course. Realizing that, PayPal is awfully convenient, and Facebook has a captive audience of lazy people who don't want to use multiple apps. As horrible as it is, this might end up being a big hit. Until they get hacked and lose all the money.
Technically this system is supposed to assist the pilots in avoiding or recovering from a stall, compensating for poorer aerodynamics on the MAX. It might have gotten approved without the normal redundancies because it only assists the pilot. I know a few other industries where that excuse flies....
Yes it's news! These parents were cheating the system! They paid someone to fake some records and deliver a few individual bribes instead of engaging in the time honoured system of institutional bribery you describe.
How are elite universities supposed to maintain their campuses, endowments and football teams in the face of increasing cocaine costs when these upstarts are bribing admissions officers with thousands of dollars instead of the whole institution with tens of millions of dollars?
There definitely seems to be more to it. The MAX series is apparently unstable at high angles of attack due to the change in placement of the engines, which is why the MCAS was added in the first place. Perhaps the system is able to produce a pitch excursion large enough to put the plane into the unstable regime.
Anyway, the MAX has suddenly acquired a pretty bad safety record. It might be really bad luck, but probably not.
Yes... journalism math. Decimal points are just decoration.
I don't think it would be easily measurable though. It's easy enough to measure sound in water at 15 km distance (or 150 km) but it would be very difficult to determine whether the average direction had changed since the wave would have dispersed so much.
when their aircraft exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground
Just in case you missed it.
At least on on the Indonesian flight, it appears that a hardware sensor failed, causing the software system to act inappropriately and a backup manual override procedure wasn't part of the training course. There's lots of failure to go around, at the hardware, software, and training levels.