My take is it's not even an economic problem. Unless you fly really fast (like Mach 3++), flying east sucks.
Let's assume we have a plane capable of Mach 3+: the SR-71 holds a record for flying from NYC to London in 1h54 and it could do well over Mach 3. Let's assume our plane can do the same in 2 hours.
If you take off from NYC at 10am, you will land at 5pm local time in London. Sure it's a lot faster than a regular flight but you didn't gain as much as flying west bound.
With the same 2 hour flight (because when you fly that high, wind doesn't make such a big difference), you could leave London at 10am and land in NYC at 7am local time, that's so much better.
But that's for a plane doing Mach 3+. Boom is planning to fly slower than Concorde (Mach 1.7 vs Mach 2.02).
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted because you're right: they have the technology, they don't have an engine, and this just looks like a civilian version of a fighter jet pretty much (except it has 3 turbojets).
And what people always fail to mention when it comes to supersonic flights is one of the main issue is neither a technological nor an economical one nor a supersonic boom one.
Traveling west bound is great: you leave in the morning and you arrive, local time, before the local time of your origin point. But traveling east bound isn't that great: you still have to leave in the morning and you land in the evening, so the only thing you gained is a shorter flight time but not a full day of work or shopping or what not.
So on regular flights (because Concorde was profitable, at least on the French side, thanks to charter flights), people would fly Concorde to go to NYC and fly back on a red eye...
As someone who worked for and flew on Concorde, I think what they're doing is amazingly cool though and I hope they succeed. But I'm still unsure what the long term plan is...
Right. Whether I arrive in London at 4pm or 8pm doesn't really make much of a difference. (Admittedly it probably lets you arrive on the continent without a red-eye--depending on supersonic over land rules--as you pretty much have to do today.)
All other things being equal, sure. But I'm probably not paying thousands of dollars to save a few hours. Maybe if that amount of money is basically pocket lint, but that's a tiny percentage of the population.
Concorde holds the world record in both directions actually.
F-BTSD did it:
- westbound in 32 hours 49 minutes and 3 seconds on 12/13 October 1992, LIS-SDQ-ACA-HNL-GUM-BKK-BAH-LIS (Lisbon, Saint-Domingue, Acapulco, Honolulu, Guam, Bangkok, Bahrein, Lisbon)
- astbound in 31 hours 27 minutes and 49 seconds on 15/16 August 1995, JFK-TLS-DXB-BKK-GUM-HNL-ACA-JFK (New York, Toulouse, Dubai, Bangkok, Guam, Honolulu, Acapulco, New York)
The issue with (software) raid is you have no idea if what you're copying isn't actually corrupted. If the filesystem isn't checksumed there's no guarantee.
Even the busybox port has it. The only sort implementation I know of that doesn't have -h is toybox (I guess older busybox implementations are missing it as well), but I'm using -h for well over a decade and seldom had it missing
i was actually curious when busybox's sort added it; but didnt search too hard. was certainly easy to see gnu get it in 2009 i think (but even then if the dude setup there bashrc long ago and that func/alias works, likely no reason to change it immediatly)
i can say an `BusyBox v1.35.0 (2022-08-01 15:14:44 UTC)` did not have -h; so it having it now is kind of a shock to me (looks like busybox v1.36.1 has it - at least from 2023-06-22) - good too! always frustrating when a dev tries using gnu-args and it blows up and i gotta explain the diff between mac-shell-cmds, gnu, and busybox
I found this online a long time ago, and it's been with me across BSD, Macintosh and Linux. So I can't say why it is that way, and I didn't know about sort -h before today.
The issue here is with your auditors. I mean if RH tells you a CVE has been fixed with a backport, sure you can challenge that fact but at the same time and with the same standards, it'd mean your auditor would also have to check the actual source of your patched Ubuntu packages to make sure the new versions fixed the security bugs.
The bottom line really is plenty of auditors I've seen don't know how to check for vulnerabilities other than by checking a version... That's it.. Their tools or reporting only know package must have a version greater than x.y.z.
