But don’t all pilots have to lodge their flight plans? Surely hiding a plane in a hangar is not that easy since you would know which airport it is located in.
> But don’t all pilots have to lodge their flight plans?
No, they don't. And many municipal airports aren't even manned and, outside of certain areas, aren't under direct air traffic control. I flew in a Cessna with a private pilot who landed at a municipal airport in Los Angeles Country without ever talking to anyone. He just announced his intention to land on the published radio frequency, received no objection (because no one else was around), visually confirmed the runway was clear with a flyby, then lined up on the approach path and landed. I got the sense this is the norm in civil aviation outside of major airports.
Although filing a VFR flight plan is an excellent idea so that someone is looking for you in case you don’t show up at your destination, it is optional. ATC receives IFR flight plans only; VFR flight plans go to Search and Rescue.
This is awesome. May I please make one request which would make my life so easy - can you wrap the chords in square brackets? Tools like MySongbook will highlight the chords that way
I see so much being cited from Wikipedia, and that is not a reliable source.
One only has to look at an article in different languages, clearly authored by different sets of people. For example, if you look up "Kosovo", the English version states "Kosovo ... is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition" whereas the one in Serbian states (which I will translate):
"Република Косово је званични назив једнострано проглашене државе на територији Републике Србије, противно Уставу Србије.[5] Према Резолуцији 1244 Савета безбедности УН цела територија Косова и Метохије, правно гледано, налази се у саставу Србије док не буде постигнуто коначно решење"
translated as:
"Kosovo is a formal name for a one-sidedly declared country on the territory of Republic of Serbia, to the objection of Serbia. According to the resolution 1244 from the Security Council of the UN, the entire territory of Kosovo and Metohija, in terms of the law, belongs to Serbia until a final resolution is reached."
Wikipedia is essentially a he-said/she-said website on politically charged matters, and I really wish people would stop treating it as the source of truth.
Please look up the term "ethnic cleansing" where it originated and the parties involved. I'll save you a bit of time, term ethnic cleansing was coined during Bosnian Civil War and is used to describe forceful removal of ethnic population through violent means think murder at concentration camp scale. Serbs ethnically cleansed Bosnians during Bosnian War. To save you even more time.
I don't need Wikipedia to tell me anything about Bosnian War, but people here need sources. You coming in and saying Wikipedia is not a reliable source without citing anything makes you uninformed at best.
I gave a very specific example of the inconsistency between different language versions of the same wiki page, which is prevalent in every wiki page where there is a potential for political influence. Based on what you said, I'm fairly certain you did not even read my comment.
I've worked for a large OEM, dealing with a large Japanese megacorp that is not Mazda for about two years (actually Mazda was one of our customers too, but I didn't get to work with them directly). This does not amaze me anymore.
We spent months agonizing over an interior temperature sensor, which was only used to display the information to the user on a smartphone app. We built both the hardware and software, and it was offered as an add-on at the dealerships. After months of negotiations, after the hardware was already built and the packages assembles, they decided temperature sensors were too inaccurate (+/- 5 degrees F) to use, and that it could present a legal liability. Again, this was nothing else but displaying the information on the app - and the user could then make a decision whether to remote start the car to cool it or heat it (no automatic process took place either).
This was at the height of "unintended accelerator" issue in Toyotas, so everyone was walking on egg shells playing it ultra safe to not invite any more lawsuits.
What surprises me is that this culture of "playing it safe" remained to this day, some 10 years later (but maybe it shouldn't).
Idk about everyone else but when it comes to anything running in my car, _anything_, there is no such thing as excessive "playing it safe". It's a 2 ton mass of steel barreling down the highway at 70+ mph next to other unpredictable 2 ton masses, please for the love of God, fight to maintain that culture of "playing it safe", regardless of what you're working on and for what purpose.
It should always be tempered with common sense. The older I get the more I just want a basic car. I just need gauges and a radio with bluetooth. I don't need to integrate everything into my car or have an 18" center console. A reliable car (electric or gas), decent interior space, with no surveillance and just basic features and I'll walk into your dealorship and pay cash. Closest I've gotten so far is my base model corolla with 4G antenna disabled (after market).
Would you be willing to pay millions for your car to make it safer? The pope has bullet proof glass, different body materials can protect your life. How would you define excessive?
R&D is already baked into the final price of everything we buy so that has no argument.
And the bullet proof glass thing I shouldn't even respond to because of the ridiculous extreme you've had to go to, trying to argue against me saying the companies should play it safe, but I'll reply this one time. I'm not asking the car company to protect me from an assassin's bullets. That is not something they control. I'm asking them to "play it safe" when developing components for the car so the car doesn't kill me while I'm in the car. They are responsible for their domain and are not producing armored vehicles for war time. So ridiculous lol
Your comment was nothing is too excessive. The truth is, everything has a level where we try to balance cost/safety. Having Mazda spend millions more puts the base stickier price up. It might be $100, $500, $5000, $50,000 $5,000,000. How much more are you willing to pay and if you really cared wouldn't you buy a Volvo over a Mazda?
This really isn’t helping. Cars are very safe at the moment, with the driver being the key factor in accidents. They are very safe at the current price point. GP was arguing we should keep fighting to keep them safe. That means we keep doing whatever it is we’re doing, which is making cars safe, at a reasonable cost.
People roll their cars on the highway and walk away these days. That wasn't a thing that happened in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and even 90s. Some people don't survive, but a vast majority do. You're instantly surrounded by airbags from all sides these days and have a sort of forcefield to absorb the energy of the crash so you don't have to. The same concept has safely dropped rovers onto other planets. Engines nosedive downward into the ground instead of back into the firewall and then into your legs, crumple zones take the impact and absorb the energy instead of transferring it through the solid steel bumper, solid steel frame, solid steal dashboard, solid steal steering column, and solid steel steering where, where your skull is next in line to absorb that energy which up to that point has hardly dissipated. In the 60s a fender bender often messed up people's necks for life, yet people today can often flip their car and walk away with scratches, never to complain about any life long issues stemming from the accident. Automatic collision detechion systems can notice a stopped object and apply the brakes faster than our meat cpus can even process the eyeball input and notice what is going on, and then dealing with the latency of brain to muscle signals and muscle speed and accuracy. When you're about to hit a brick wall at highway speeds, 250ms more of brakes on full can shed an insane amount of speed/momentum/energy. And let's not forget about all the people who text and drive who would rear end or cross the lane and hit someone head on if it wasn't for collision detection stopping them or lane keep yanking the car back into the lane it should be in. Cars are safer than they have ever been.
I’m guessing it’s arguable, but in the top 25 causes of accidents (in the US), I only found 2 that are linked to the car itself. Cars themselves seem fairly safe.
Indeed, in a car accident, the car itself is rarely to blame.
But that was not my point.
At the end of the day, no matter how well it's built, a car is a several tons lump of steel launched at significant speed. It's an inherently deadly machine.
Having a lapse of attention while driving a car? you might easily cause a someone to die.
Having the same lapse on a bike? you might cause some broken bones.
Having the same lapse while walking? you are good for some "Oh... I'm sorry".
If you live in the US, getting shot while driving (or at school, or at work) at is something that happens from time to time, so if you value safety, you really do need armor and bullet-resistant glass on your car to drive in America.
Are you denying that there's more guns than people in the US, or that tens of thousands of people are killed by guns there every year? Strange how Americans are so in denial of the war-like state of their country and daily life in it.
Where did I deny anything? I called the comment edgy. I was stating my opinion regarding the edginess of the parent comment. My opinion, on the comment I replied to, was that it was edgy. That was my conclusion, regarding my opinion, on the topic of the parent comment.
Strange how HNs assume what country others reside in and apply their opinions, projecting them even, onto anything possible, whether or not the thing they are applying them to is at all related to what they reply with, and how they like to put words into the mouths of others with absolutely zero context to be able to make such assumptions, and are in denial about the ignorant-like state of their psyche and daily life as an idiot.
Never said "X at all costs" but thanks for trying to speak for me. Going forward, please note that my preference is to speak for myself, as should you.
I'm not sure why you took such offense; it's a reasonable interpretation of the words you spoke for yourself:
> there is no such thing as excessive "playing it safe"
As you noted in your other comment:
> I'm asking them to "play it safe" when developing components for the car so the car doesn't kill me while I'm in the car.
As in the old adage in computing ("the only unhackable computer is one that isn't connected to anything"), there's no way to ensure that the components of a car don't fail, even while in routine use. There is only more or less likely that they won't fail, and of course, less and less likely to fail is more and more expensive.
We might say that the only uncrashable car is one that sits in the garage and never goes anywhere. Obviously, that would be playing it safe excessively, since it would defeat the purpose of having a car to begin with. But what about less obvious cases? Toyota recalled millions of cars for their "unintended acceleration" issue. The merits of that particular case aside, how much more would someone pay for a Corolla that would be progressively less likely to have safety issues? At some point before infinity, it would be considered excessive.
I think the sliding scale of how safe is playing it too safe is a discussion very much worth having.
Yes, I just don't want to pay all of it myself. I just want to pay the marginal cost of making it. Let the automaker invest said millions (really billions over all the individual components) into the design and manufacture.
Just further proves my point. You should probably then take out any floor mats, cup holders, temperature controls, radio, or anything else that could potentially impede, obstruct, or otherwise distract from driving safely.
This comment was meant for the normal folks who spend a lot of time in our vehicles and are willing to accept a level of risk that comes along with having some sense of comfort.
Yes because the obvious line to draw from me saying keep the playing it safe culture is that I wish car manufactures remove cup holders and floor mats because death is going to find me final destination style and use any object it can to facilitate my demise.
I forget the term for this, but it’s the same as me stating I like pancakes and you coming at me saying I hate waffles, when I wasn’t talking about waffles at any point. Those types of arguments are insane and I won’t engage with them. I wasn’t saying those things, I’m not defending against your claims that I did.
If you are accusing me of being absurdist or reductionist, know this: floor mats were the official cause of "sudden acceleration", where they would slip off their pegs that were holding them to the floor (usually due to human error), and would jam the pedal to the floor. Or sometimes between the brake pedal and the floor preventing correct operation of the brake. In fact, Toyota and NHTSA issued an urgent recall in 2009 to remove all floor mats from vehicles due to this very issue: https://www.safetyresearch.net/toyota-and-nhtsa-issue-urgent...
So yes, the line was very obvious because these are events that happen in real life, risk that you say you wanted to eliminate by absolutely playing it safe: "_anything_, there is no such thing as excessive 'playing it safe'"
I can only assume that your original comment was reactionary and hyperbolic, but then got upset over where that kind of hyperbole lead in the past.
Woah I'd have guessed that temperature sensors would be more accurate than that! Is it just an issue of cost, or are most affordable temp sensors that inaccurate and I've never realised it? That would explain a lot though!
No, it's pretty easy to get better sensors than that. E.g. a cheap-ass SHT20 will do +-0.3C. In fact, my own automotive parts recommendations are the next grades up (SHT21/SHT3x) as standard for my employer's boards because the cost difference is justified.
Never underestimate the ability of a manufacturer to select subpar parts to save 25 cents on the BOM and spend 6 figures elsewhere trying to fix the resulting issues though.
I think the problem is not the accuracy of the sensors themselves but that its difficult to have a placement inside the car such that the measurement is minimally influenced. Many factors influence temperature: heat from the motor, from heating and from the sun shining on the car and perhaps others.
And it also depends what exactly you want to measure: air, motor or inside temperature? People might get confused. And inside temperature might differ a lot: behind the windscreen it might be a lot hotter than at the floor.
It's undoubtedly more than that, depending on where you measure. The gradient between e.g. the roof lining and the AC vent could easily be 20C+ degrees on a hot day. Most boards on a vehicle will have their own temperature sensors to measure enclosure temps, and there will be zonal sensors at various points in the cabin as well. The climate control loop will be defined in terms of those zonal sensors.
Measuring temperature is not trivial. There's convective, conductive and radiative heat transfer and they all factor into the measurement. And that may not accurately reflect the "cabin temperature," particularly in a parked car.
If you just buy a bare sensor, yes, it's going to be +/-5. They also have a non-linear response which needs to be dealt with as well.
If you are only concerned about a 20 or so degree temperature range it's not an issue, but if you are trying to read over a 100 degree range, you'll want to account for non-linearity as well.
Also, accurate and precise to 10ths of a degree isn't really attainable unless you do fancy math as the sensor will heat each time you read it. The idea is to take multiple readings and average them but unless you are accounting for the heating of the sensor, your numbers will be garbage.
This is for consumer grade sub $50 sensors. Of course you can go fancier but you have to pay for it.
This isn't something I know anything about, but I know that 1-Wire exists and so on so am able to locate something like https://www.analog.com/en/products/max30207.html pretty easily. $2 in quantity, reports a temperature digitally, accurate to 0.3 C between 0 and 70 C.
What is it about that device (or similar) that would put it out of scope?
It's probably not that the sensor is bad. It's the location of the sensor that is tucked away in the interior foam so that it's not reading the air inside the cabin
Depends on the sensor, depends on its calibration (or its lack of such functionality). Often a function of cost and/or size, as well as the means by which it measures temp.
Scientific sensors are highly accurate and can also be small, but you have a steep cost increase of course.
Now that I think back, I believe you are correct. The decision was based on making a previously-unavailable feature available, which meant people could potentially (be irresponsible and) leave pets/children in the vehicle while relying on an inaccurate sensor, which could open them up to lawsuits.
lol… it’s also a hint that google will evaluate the reported conversion as one of pure scaling without any of the transformation that occurs in converting 5 Fahrenheit to 5 Celsius.
I work at a network hardware vendor who has a large Japanese customer base.
After Fukushima we were asked to provide specifications for acceptable operating environment radiation levels, after some negotiation they relented and gave us a figure we could test at, so engineers drove hardware to a spot with high background radiation and ran it for a couple of days off a generator to test.
The Japanese customers also insisted that each display on the hardware be the same shade of white, so they would all look nice in a datacenter, so our LCD displays have specifically graded white LEDs.
I am curious what an "expensive" one would actually cost, too... It is a car so already a large purchase. I'd pay a bit more for an accurate thermostat.
It's not just material cost, probably different interface to the sensor so factor in some R&D, approvals, etc. Any time anything, no matter how small or innocuous (bracket, cable, screw, some piece of plastic cover, etc), was changed on a vehicle, it meant a different part number, which meant 6-12 months delay. This is because it has to go through all the testing - usability, fatigue, safety, etc all over again. This is why they pick cheap parts - not because they're cheap, but because they are old and got cheaper over the years, because old = already approved, which makes the lead time a lot less.
You will know no fury as when your kids intentionally mix up all the pieces for fun. We have hundreds of LEGO people, and my kids intentionally dismembered them into their individual pieces (including HANDS!). But how can you get angry at kids playing??? twitch
My daughter will be getting her own Lego and possibly a selection of mine. I organized mine for the first time in my life last year. Some of the sets I've had since the very late 80s and early 90s. Those aren't getting lost :P
She can play with them supervised, but she'll have her own. This is all assuming she's even interested, she's only 2 so who knows yet.
Mine is also two and really into Duplo, so Lego will be a natural progression, especially considering that the blocks are compatible, so I wholeheartedly recommend it.
Also some the ones she's playing with are currently over 30 years old and still going.
I think having sets that you like to keep together and you don't want to mix up is fine. Too many people saw the Lego Movie and took it to mean that keeping sets as sets is bad. Note that the person you responded to isn't stopping their kids even as they cause more destruction than the Lego Movie showed, they're simply complaining about it here because what _they_ had is gone.
Yes, let kids mix and match and play. But also acknowledge that we all play differently, and for some people having a model of something that they built is where the fun lies. People who like organization can still have fun, let's not shame them for their preferences.
Uhhh... the GP was written in a kinda funny way, so it just seemed fitting to plug a reference to the movie. If you want to keep sets together, power to you. My kids have a mixture of both (sets they want to keep as is and a mountain of pieces from other sets) and... that's just fine.
Is there a general assumption/consensus that Google doesn’t do stuff like this? My assumption is that any closed-source software can collect any data they want about their users.
“If they can, they will.” The past 20 years has been a steady march towards desensitizing users towards making users give up their privacy.
I love this idea, but at the same time I think it is not feasible. Back then, there were no economic or even political benefits of being able to join an online community. These days, economic and political reasons are major driving factors of either controlling or infiltrating communities, so there will always be a cat-and-mouse game between insincere actors and moderators. This would be especially true on non-technical communities, although I have seen some pop up over Signal through word of mouth.
On the technical side, it’s probably a lot easier to gatekeep, but even HN has degraded significantly since its early days. Lobster.rs is the only truly technical one that has kept that spirit (to this day I am still not a member, which kind of proves its gatekeeping abilities hah).
It is mind-boggling to me that something so frivolous is a $1B industry. Watch straps to me are completely functional. Sure, I’ll pick a better-looking strap, but I would never pay extra - especially not the exorbitant amount Apple charges - for looking “pretty”.
Just goes to show that all my assumptions about what makes a product popular/profitable are wrong.
P.S. I do have the Apple watch anyway. My strap requirements are: breathable, can be removed easily, doesn’t pinch arm hair.
I find that the people who say things like this are the same folk who will spend extra on a gaming PC battlestation that has color-coordinated neon lighting from the chassis, monitor backlighting, and on their keyboard.
People value aesthetics. Not everything in life is purely functional. Maybe you don't personally appreciate the beauty of a nice wristwatch strap, and that's fine. But I can virtually guarantee that there's some area of your life where you have spent additional dollars on a widget to gain some additional aesthetic value above and beyond what was purely functional. You simply did so on objects you personally care about. You likely have even done so without being consciously aware of this decision! Someone else with different preferences could easily look at that purchase and boggle at how anyone could spend extra on something so pointless.
And if you really, truly, have never spent extra time, effort, or money on something you'd appreciated for its beauty? To me, that's… just kind of depressing.
I think my comment was misinterpreted, judging by both comments to it.
What I meant to say, wrist straps were not even on my radar of aesthetics, and I was shocked to learn it’s a $1B business (for Apple alone?). So clearly, I missed how much they mean to people.
Obviously, I (and pretty much everyone else) do buy things at least partially influenced by aesthetics (clothing, sunglasses, furniture, to name a few). Wrist straps were a huge surprise for me, though. Another one is paying a premium for different colored phones (and I admit I was first in line to pay a premium for a jet black RAZR phone back in the day)
I was in a discussion about a decade ago on the topic of form following function. People were arguing that decorative bits were unnecessary and detract from the beautiful form of something that's functionally pure. A creative director that works with several name brands you've heard of ended the conversation there by replying that decoration serves a different kind of function, mainly communication. If engineers had their way, most products would have nothing but cubes and spheres. In this sense, decoration would be rounding the edges of a cube to communicate that the product is kid friendly, fun to play with and will not hurt if you step on it. Conversely, sharpening the overly round corners helps convey that the product is a serious tool for serious business.
I'm paraphrasing because here because this is so long ago but I hope you get the point. Apple doesn't make products that 'just look pretty', they also tend to be highly functional. (As long as you're not holding it wrong.)
