loeg

15 ms·

1.
by loeg 4d ago
"Woke" is the 20 side of myriad 20-80 issues. It cannot accurately be described as "broadly popular."
2.
by loeg 4d ago
Uh, no, those things did not arise out of terrorism.
3.
by loeg 4d ago
We've already got the G7.
4.
by loeg 5d ago
Left main gear finally touched down at 00:19 and they slowed from 134 to 120 knots between 00:19 and 00:15.
5.
by loeg 5d ago
No buddy. I'm just saying it wasn't "capitalism," which was your claim. I don't think you can pin this on Trump or his admin, either.
6.
by loeg 5d ago
Yeah, but it's also Pilot B's job to take over if Pilot A isn't flying safely. He didn't.
7.
by loeg 5d ago
They were not over takeoff velocity at that point. They were at 120 knots when they initiated GA and slowed to 117 knots before aborting (again, the engines take time to spool up despite full thrust configuration and no braking over thos
8.
by loeg 6d ago
Yeah, to some extent. But you see a lot more of this in GA (or Part 135) than in Part 121 airline operations. This was exceedingly bad judgement by real professional pilots in a 767.
9.
by loeg 6d ago
Ah, yes, the Soviets never took risks. It couldn't be that humans are fallible.
10.
by loeg 6d ago
How did they ignore the descent rate and speed? They were absolutely diving at the ground. It's just such an elementary mistake.
11.
by loeg 6d ago
You can go around and try again at the same airport long before you have to divert.
12.
by loeg 6d ago
They were in a bad situation long before they touched the ground and should have gone around even earlier.
13.
by loeg 6d ago
No, this stuff is all downstream of their terrible earlier decisions.
14.
by loeg 6d ago
They didn't have much runway left at 00:15 and were far slower than 158 at that point. They came in far too fast, descending too rapidly; first touch was >50% down the runway, and they didn't get the left gear down, so the spoi
15.
by loeg 6d ago
The go-around decision was far too late. Remember the engines need significant time to spool up. The decision to cancel the go-around was correct (conditional on the preceding series of terrible decisions).
16.
by loeg 6d ago
It's just non-responsive to the parent comment. Lay people would consider that "stolen," whether the original account holder possessed a legal right to the name or not. GP even quoted it like that to show they were not talki
17.
by loeg 6d ago
First time interacting with journalism? Granted, this is even more slanted than typical.
18.
by loeg 6d ago
> Before today, I'd never heard of the muse app It only launched two days ago, so.
19.
by loeg 6d ago
I think GP is (correctly) claiming that you don't actually own your account handle on social media services, including X. But I don't think it was a particularly relevant response at that point in the comment thread, and I agree
20.
by loeg 6d ago
ToS doesn't constrain the owner.
21.
by loeg 6d ago
Do you think they got the @muse Twitter handle through deception or force? Or again, perhaps through a voluntary economic transaction with the band? I don't really see any reason the band would be silent about this unless they were co
22.
by loeg 7d ago
> The exact circumstances surrounding how the accounts changed hands are unclear Maybe, you know, Meta bought the account from the band in a voluntary transaction?
23.
by loeg 7d ago
This is a great example of confirmation bias.
24.
by loeg 7d ago
It is exactly what he is saying. He's justifying "drivers intentionally try[ing] to drive [GP] off the road or hit [GP]."
25.
by loeg 7d ago
Do you think these people don't realize it's wrong, or that they do this kind of things during the 10 minute practical test?
26.
by loeg 7d ago
As an engineer, I know what I'm getting paid to deliver is the work product. I don't have too much attachment to any particular set of tools to get there.
27.
by loeg 8d ago
> Is it that we might think the 'Harvard study' in question is literally clairvoyant? Yes, that is a straightforward interpretation of the headline!
28.
by loeg 8d ago
It's a pretty straightforward reading of the headline. Of course almost everyone understands it would be impossible. But like, you can also just write more clearly.
29.
by loeg 8d ago
You're missing out, for better or worse.
30.
by loeg 8d ago
What percent of ChatGPT users do you think know the company behind it is OpenAI? 10%?

More ›