True, but absolute bank angle would also matter (say endpoint of roll when roll acceleration is zero) because now there's a component of gravity pulling you sideways.
When roll acceleration is zero, the remaining acceleration (i.e., due to gravity) felt by a passenger on the wing edge will be the same as a passenger in the middle of the plane.
The plane turns while banking which results in a force vector mostly straight down towards the floor. If the plane did not turn while banking what you wrote is true.
A coordinated turn with 60 degrees bank should be achievable by any airworthy airplane (it requires pulling 2g), and the maximum bank angle for a steady-state coordinated turn depends on how many g you can pull before you run out of control authority, cause an accelerated stall, or reach the airframe's structural limit.
Next time you fly, get a beverage of your choice and observe how it behaves. Here's an example, courtesy of the great test pilot Bob Hoover:
If the turn is coordinated you can't tell the difference. I've been in small GA planes turning at 35-40 degrees and it doesn't feel like you're sliding at all, you're pulled back into your seat and "down" (relative to you) into the flooring.
I think the open book metaphor gets lost in the aggressive roundness of the O. When I first looked at it, I thought why would they make it look like a turbo fan…? Now in the case of Raytheon, a turbofan makes complete sense.
Hindered by this bias, it took me a bit to arrive at the open book representation, and was only able to do that because it’s OUP.
Seems like a low-on-details article with PR-like flavor.
According to this, Toyota cut production by 40%, though it does acknowledge that Toyota took less of a hit vs industry:
“New cars often include dozens of microchips but Toyota benefited from having built a larger stockpile of chips - also called semiconductors - as part of a revamp to its business continuity plan, developed in the wake of the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami a decade ago.”
This is somewhat paradoxical, but I think leadership requires some level of delusion. If one truly sees things as they are, it’s hard to create narratives and mythologies requires to motivate/lead people.
Steve Jobs’ “reality distortion field” comes to
mind.
I’ve thought it’s easier to figure a social situation out as an independent third party than to figure out a situation in the first person. That might be related to Jobs’ “reality distortion field”. But at the same time, people are finite and of course always going to be blind to the total context around them - in anything suitably complicated. So I wouldn’t put a lot into this.
I don't think delusion is the best word for it. Delusion implies that the vision of people in leadership roles are unrealistic in some way. I think resiliently optimistic is probably a better term. I don't think most people are motivated by myth, they're motivated by good support.
That's fair – I wasn't being particularly rigorous when I implied "delusion".
Resiliently optimistic is better. Reminds of me of the Stockdale Paradox:
"You must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, and at the same time, have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."
Relevant according to whom? You’ve explained _why_ Google returns those results, but that doesn’t make the answers relevant. Especially not when Google presents them so authoritatively as knowledge cards (or whatever they’re calling it these days).
Sure, if you’re a someone trying to reverse-engineer the algorithm, then they’re probably pretty “relevant”. But that’s not how most people use Google. I’ll bet most of HN doesn’t use Google this way.
Maybe it’s a UI issue. It’d be nice if Google attached a little disclaimer that said: “These results are “relevant” to the way our algorithm produces these results, but there’s a chance they’re laughably incorrect, so please take with a bucket of salt.” Or better still, just show the search results, instead of being clever and pretending to understand what I’m looking for. Y’know, like back in the day, when it was such a delight switching from AltaVista/Yahoo! to Google. Good times.
Exactly my experience! I had a Casio SF-R20 when I was around 13 years old, and it was a my first introduction to spreadsheets (IIRC the spreadsheet app was called Lucid 3-D).
