A couple of counterexamples from a declining demographic is not much to flatly deny the article's entire case.
There are vast teams of marketers and data scientists hard at work making things like food and social media more appealing and addictive. Of course more people are, on average, going to get more addicted to them, even if a few fish have the willpower to swim against the tide or the money to buy the chemicals to do it instead.
To be clear, not saying it is easy and I'm not saying that there is no trend. Screen time has gone up, obesity has gone up, neuroticism has gone up
Im not convinced that money is the solution to addiction and just a few more purchases away. In fact, I think rampant consumerism and trained helplessness are the crux of the problem.
It’s odd to think it reasonable to consider a solution to self inflicted addictions is drugs.
When I say self inflicted, I mean our society. I do think it’s unfortunate (and very unfair) that we have to expend so much energy not to be addicted. It’s such a sad outcome and driven by capitalistic consumerism.
I have a lot of concern for my kids. And I’m disgusted that grown adults are profiting from all of it.
Would you like to offer a substantive critique of any of the highlighted cases?
And for what it's worth, here's a later highlighted case where FIRE defended a professor who had been told to stop teaching, and I quote, "woke shit" like gender studies at a state university.
As you can tell from the price, these are a very expensive luxury item. The legal minimum wage is VND 1.800,000/month, meaning a kilo at even the lowest wholesale price of "only" 680,000 is over a week's income. At retail, I recall them going for several million dong/kilo a few years back in Danang.
To put this in perspective, this is the first fatal crash of a US commercial airliner in 16 years (Colgan Air Flight 3407 on February 12, 2009) and the first fatal commercial airliner crash in the United States in 12 years (since Asiana Airlines Flight 214 on July 6, 2013).
We like to throw shade at Boeing, the FAA etc, but this is still an incredible accomplishment, especially given the explosive growth of traffic over those years. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, there were far fewer flights but multiple crashes every year was the norm.
There is simply no reason to use the statistical safety of air travel to excuse incidents. We can appreciate the incredible feats of engineering and logistics that make air travel so safe without letting the bar dip down or throwing up our hands and saying "well it can't be perfect, don't throw shade" when a specific organization has a specific incident.
Edit: To be clear, I'm referring to what you said, not to the current incident.
> We like to throw shade at Boeing, the FAA etc, but this is still an incredible accomplishment, especially given the explosive growth of traffic over those years
To be fair to them, the Boeing-related incidents could have well happened in the US and killed Americans too. And the FAA absolutely refused to do their job until their hand was forced by everyone else - they refused to ground the Maxes until all other major air authorities did. That's also why EASA is involved in the Max recertification, and the 777X certification. Nobody trusts the FAA anymore.
And the fact that the door blowout didn't damage any part of the plane is miraculous - if it had hit the vertical stabiliser, the plane would have been a total loss.
That was my thought exactly when I heard of this. I trust that like other major accidents, that we will learn from this and make the skies safer. Sixteen years without a major airline crash was an incredible accomplishment. It's a tragedy it couldn't have gone on longer.
And the perceived sentiment that those fatalities are directly linked to changes in the corporate culture that emphasized 'greed' and 'middle management power structures' over 'engineering focus'
Not saying these are true - or false - just that the prevalent media coverage and social media commentary (including here on HN) has been touching on these points frequently. The 'good guys' at Boeing were pushed out or silenced, the 'sleazy guys' won and didn't care about the consequences as long as they got their payday
Actually, the planes from both crashes were Bombardier, a Canadian company. The first one means operated by a US company and the second one refers to a crash in the US.
I believe the distinction the OP was making was foreign-owned/operated airline vs domestic. Makes a small difference, but not hufe, as all commericial pilots landing in the US must have an FAA ATP, and the same minimum flight hours as American pilots (though the quality of those hours and other training may vary).
Although in terms of risk it is better framed as big ship vs big ship. Because if they touch they are both going down. And both will be constrained in how far they can realistically detect and avoid the other. That is a fact with flying visually and that is why you have instrument flight rules and atc based separation. I know nothing about this location but theoretically ATC could take active steps to avoid conflict.
They could change the arrival sequence to allow crossings. Send the arrivals around if need be. The crossing could take place above the airfield or further away to provide more vertical separation. .
From what I've seen, military leaders can and do get fired and blamed for their unit failings, at least more frequently than equivalent corporate leaders do.
DeepSeek is basically a startup, not a "foreign nation-state backed organization". They were forced to pivot to AI when their original business model (quant hedge fund) was stomped on by the Chinese government.
Of course this is China so the government can and does intervene at will, but alleging that this required CIA level state espionage to pull off is alien crash levels of implausible. They open sourced the entire thing and published incredibly detailed papers on how they did it!
You don’t need a CIA level agent to get someone with a fraudulent job at OpenAI for a few months, load some files on a thumb drive, and catch a plane to Shanghai.
Naivety of some folks here is astounding… CCP has golden shares in anything that could possibly be important at some point in the next hundred years, and yes golden shares are either really that or they’re an euphemism, the point is it doesn’t even matter.
It doesn’t have to micromanage. It doesn’t care about most. It is only interested in the politically important ones, but it needs the optionality if something becomes worthwhile.
You're suggesting that DeepSeek was a Chinese government operation that gained access to OpenAI's proprietary data, and then you're justifying that by saying that the government effectively controls every important company. You're even chiding people who don't believe this as naive.
I think you have a cartoonish view of China. A huge amount goes on that the government has no idea about. Now that DeepSeek has made a huge media splash, the Chinese government will certainly pay attention to them, but then again, so will the US government.
I’m suggesting it will be happening now and any past efforts will be retroactively analyzed by the appropriate CCP apparatus since everyone is aware of the scale of success as of Monday. It has become a political success, thus it is imperative the CCP partakes in it.
> DeepSeek, illegally, got their hands on an OpenAI model via a breach of OpenAI's systems. [...] given the lengths other Chinese entities have gone to when it comes to replicating Western technology; we should not discount this.
Above, teractiveodular said that "DeepSeek is basically a startup, not a 'foreign nation-state backed organization'". You called teractiveodular naive for saying that. So forgive me if I take the obvious implication that you think DeepSeek is actually a state-backed actor enabled by government hacking of OpenAI.
There were enough passengers, and flying the Concorde actually became profitable for the airlines once they figured out they just needed to charge through the nose for it. This was despite prodigious fuel consumption and that fuel becoming much more expensive after the oil crisis.
The main problems were that the requirement to only fly supersonic over water massively limited the possible routes it could fly, and that actually flying in a Concorde was not very comfortable (cramped, tiny windows, hot, vibration etc). Boom promises to tackle both of these, which will open it up to far more routes.
I still don't see this being something large airlines would be overly interested in, but I wonder if there's a private market. If you're Taylor Swift maybe being able to fly from NYC to LA in half the time is well worth it.
Air travel is more popular than ever and 2024 broke basically all records. Why would there be less case for faster flights?
Supersonic flight will be the preserve of the 0.1%, but the vast majority of private jets can't fly trans-continental (without stops along the way) and there are people out there paying $50k per flight for Etihad's The Residence suites. So, yes, there are people who will pay for this.
the way i've heard it explained is functionally that the ultra rich are either leaning towards things like those private suites onboard a large plane, or flying in a private jet.
people don't mind the experience of flying in a plane or the time it takes for the most part - they mind being uncomfortably crammed into a seat for hours on end with another person spilling into their lap in a loud, stuffy cabin. otherwise, it's just hanging out in a different place than you usually do.
at the point you're paying for a resort hotel room with a shower, bed, privacy, internet and a tv in the air... who cares if you spend a few extra hours? the only example of a supersonic airliner that i can point to, the concorde, was actually fairly uncomfortable and cramped because of the way it was designed. it's likely (though i've been wrong before) that future supersonic planes would make similar tradeoffs to try and minimize weight and drag and maximize fuel economy - you will trade comfort for speed.
i think most of the people you're talking about would prefer 8 hours in a private hotel room (or full on private jet) with a full bar, bottle service, a shower and fancy meals to 2-3 hours cramped in a relatively small cabin after the novelty wears off. given how much easier it is to effectively meet across the ocean without traveling, the market for ultra-fast flights to get a one-day trip over with is also likely smaller.
i can't say i know any of these facts for certain, but previously when discussing the return of supersonic flights with folks who know better than i, this was the general sentiment. it makes reasonable sense to me on its face.
> the ultra rich are either leaning towards things like those private suites onboard a large plane, or flying in a private jet
Anyone making $1+ mm / year is not in regular private-jet territory. That leaves commercial, which doesn’t have suites on most routes. (Most domestic routes don’t have lay-flat options.)
In between you have a $5k to $25k window in which something like Boom could operate. Same, dense domestic business seats. But lower service costs because you don’t need to serve a coursed meal on a 2-hour flight.
The real money is in business travel, not leisure. For long haul transpac flights in business class, it's not uncommon to pay 2-3x more for direct flights instead of a stopover, which means the market values the savings of a couple of hours at around $5000.
Air travel is more popular because of cheap flights, airline competition and a consolidation amongst manufacturers leading to standardisations. There's no evidence that the 0.1pct are going to swap their private jets that fly at 0.8 for sharing an aircraft flying on other people's schedules between airports they dont want to travel to/from.
Air travel is popular, but extremely price sensitive. Ryanair and its ilk have shown that people will suffer humiliation to save even $50 on ticket prices.
Supersonic will have to serve the rich, who are willing to pay to fly private. But how big is that market? Especially if you’re still going to raise prices 2-3x?
Some passengers are extremely price sensitive, but full-service airlines make 80% of their profits from the 10% sitting up in the pointy end. It already costs 4x more to fly biz than economy, and 9-11x more to fly first (actual first class, not US domestic).
There are vast teams of marketers and data scientists hard at work making things like food and social media more appealing and addictive. Of course more people are, on average, going to get more addicted to them, even if a few fish have the willpower to swim against the tide or the money to buy the chemicals to do it instead.