Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:46 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:20 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:51 am Your Favorite President knows the science!







Complexity Creates Danger!

Future Space Force inductees take note. You may be going to space in baking soda rockets.

ok - who the fuck at Fox & Friends was ruminating on airplanes yesterday?

Boeing must be back to flattering Trump, or else he would attack them by name.

But there's a non-zero chance that he demanded to take the controls of Air Force One and was refused.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:04 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:46 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:20 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:51 am Your Favorite President knows the science!







Complexity Creates Danger!

Future Space Force inductees take note. You may be going to space in baking soda rockets.

ok - who the fuck at Fox & Friends was ruminating on airplanes yesterday?

Boeing must be back to flattering Trump, or else he would attack them by name.

But there's a non-zero chance that he demanded to take the controls of Air Force One and was refused.

Older and simpler is what we have for a potus.

Once upon a time a phone had wires so you couldn't lose it. And a dial so you could dial stuff. Like pizza.

Technology sucks.

The idea that high technology has made air travel more dangerous... Just sit on that for a minute.

My cousin is a licensed commercial pilot that now specializes in accident investigation claims for an insurance company. When we talk about flying (quite regularly, actually) he's quick to point out that planes are mostly autonomous now. Everyone marvels at the idea of a self-driving car, but planes already do it (and have been for some time). In his experience, when there are catastrophic failures on aircraft, it's because there has been a system malfunction that requires the pilot or flight crew to (1) quickly recognize something is wrong and then (2) respond by manually taking over and correcting the problem. His experience once again is that because planes are now so highly autonomous, pilots have lost the ability to do the first or second thing - they're rusty. He also pointed out this will likely be the inevitable conclusion for self-driving cars. As we start to rely on them more, when they need us to take over, we won't be ready. The difference is a matter of scale.

So it's not that Trump is wrong, but as usual he's not understanding the whole picture.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:16 pm The idea that high technology has made air travel more dangerous... Just sit on that for a minute.

Well, they do have less wings than they used to have. Wait, are they simply now with fewer wings or more complicated? Someone ask the president.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:26 pm My cousin is a licensed commercial pilot that now specializes in accident investigation claims for an insurance company. When we talk about flying (quite regularly, actually) he's quick to point out that planes are mostly autonomous now. Everyone marvels at the idea of a self-driving car, but planes already do it (and have been for some time). In his experience, when there are catastrophic failures on aircraft, it's because there has been a system malfunction that requires the pilot or flight crew to (1) quickly recognize something is wrong and then (2) respond by manually taking over and correcting the problem. His experience once again is that because planes are now so highly autonomous, pilots have lost the ability to do the first or second thing - they're rusty. He also pointed out this will likely be the inevitable conclusion for self-driving cars. As we start to rely on them more, when they need us to take over, we won't be ready. The difference is a matter of scale.

So it's not that Trump is wrong, but as usual he's not understanding the whole picture.

While cars are planar and planes are 3 dimensional, the amount of data needed to keep cars driving autonomously in traffic has got to be exponentially higher than airplanes, which are mostly staying level, then descending at a fixed rate once put on the correct approach (not sure if the approach is automated or not). Because planes have such simplistic movements, with a 3rd party monitoring it and every other plane around it, not to mention anything radar sees in the air is important, while the ground is covered in useless objects that aren't important but register anyway, eating up processing.

Once we have dog fighting automated drones (yes, I realize a buttload of a modern fighter is computerized and/or software run), then I'll concede the comparison. Or once we have successfully moved to the majority of land vehicles being automated. Right now, it's still not a reasonable comparison. Highly autonomous planes are the equivalent of cruise control and automated 3 point parking cars. If there were 2 lane roads in the air barely the width of the plane with another one going in the opposite direction with only a few meters between their wings touching, while flying at identical height, with hundreds of planes on the same plane and same road, maybe. Having the tower tell the plane to "fly in a circle here" is hardly awesome automation, in this context.

But don't get me wrong, computer controlled planes are awesome, and self driving cars are getting awesome. It's pretty much science fiction for my childhood me.

But still... Is it more or less dangerous to fly through a major storm system in 2019 compared to, say, 1950?

He really does think he knows everything, doesn’t he?

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:54 pm But still... Is it more or less dangerous to fly through a major storm system in 2019 compared to, say, 1950?

I'm not sure what you are getting at, or what side you are taking, etc.

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:34 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:54 pm But still... Is it more or less dangerous to fly through a major storm system in 2019 compared to, say, 1950?

I'm not sure what you are getting at, or what side you are taking, etc.

He's saying that technology has made commercial flying safer, despite the added complexity and the issues that complexity may cause.

OK, I kinda thought that was what he was saying... but there is a little room for making the argument given the recent 737 crashes, as those crashes may very well be the result of the plane's flight correction system forcing the planes nose down.

So, for the folks on those planes (hypothetically) -- technology (perhaps) did make their flight less safe. And of course, the intangibles that smoove mentions (that our pilot's skills are dulling)...

Well, I can't speak for him. That's how I read it.

C'mon, make it political. Via Robert Reich:

You might think that, now that Europe and Asia have grounded the Boeing 737 MAX 8 over safety concerns, the Federal Aviation Administration would want to make sure Americans are safe. Think again.

Trump’s FAA, under Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao (who also happens to be Mitch McConnell’s wife), is doing absolutely nothing about anything. From today’s Wall Street Journal:

“Thirty-five congressional mandates sit unanswered, on everything from minimum seat space to secondary barriers protecting cockpits. The top job at the Federal Aviation Administration has been open for 14 months. Enforcement fines against major U.S. airlines have dropped 88 percent in the past two years, even as three-hour tarmac delays have more than doubled… Even with airlines begging for rules on emotional-support animals, and both Republicans and Democrats expressing concerns about swollen fees, shrunken seating and punitive airline policies, the DOT has been loath to issue new regulations.”

And what about the Boeing 737 MAX 8? The Journal goes on to report: “So far, the FAA, siding with Boeing and U.S. airlines, says the plane is safe and a software fix is coming by the end of April.” Meanwhile, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg has personally lobbied Trump not to ground the plane.

So, friends, when you’re up there at 40,000 feet, you can relax because Boeing says the plane is safe. And that’s all that counts in Trump’s Washington.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:49 pm His saving words is a sign of:

Strokes, depression, excessive long-term alcohol consumption, infections, hormonal disorders, nutritional deficiencies, brain tumors, and dementia.

Take your pick.

Advanced syphilis didn't make the list?

Is that not an infection that causes dementia?

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:13 pm

So, friends, when you’re up there at 40,000 feet, you can relax because Boeing says the plane is safe. And that’s all that counts in Trump’s Washington.

Boeing is kind of good at airplanes. Just saying. I know they have a vested interest in keeping the 727 Max flying but another crash, especially in the US, would be catastrophic. If there was any hint that it might happen, I think they would take the side of caution. Or at least wouldn't fight to keep it airborne so ardently.

Muilenburg is no McNerney though so who knows for sure.

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:47 pm OK, I kinda thought that was what he was saying... but there is a little room for making the argument given the recent 737 crashes, as those crashes may very well be the result of the plane's flight correction system forcing the planes nose down.

So, for the folks on those planes (hypothetically) -- technology (perhaps) did make their flight less safe. And of course, the intangibles that smoove mentions (that our pilot's skills are dulling)...

It's true that in a tiny number of recent cases the tech may have contributed to the accident. But Trump's blanket statement that air travel has become too complex for humankind only makes sense if the 737 is uniquely technological or if air travel deaths are consistently high in the current tech era.

In other words, a design or programming or testing error doesn't invalidate technology in general, though the smartest POTUS in history seems to think it does.

OK, just making sure. I follow you enough to realize you were likely pointing that out, but there was some ambiguity that made me feel there was a chance you were actually saying that 'as crazy as it sounds, I'd rather go up in a storm in a plane from 50 years ago than in one of these technologically advanced aircraft'...

Trump to Breitbart on how the left plays tough: "I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump — I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point and then it would be very bad, very bad."

Um... Brownshirt much?

Plus, I think he is over estimating the support of the military and police. Neither are monolithic group think entities.

While it's true the president is commander in chief, he can't just turn them on citizens he doesn't like. I would expect serious pushback from either on any constitutional rights infringing orders. The military in particular seems to have a number of high level authority that understands the constitution they are defending.

Angry Staff Officer wrote: Apropos of absolutely nothing, the US military supports and defends the Constitution of the United States

Congress: About that national emergency...

Senate votes to reject Trump’s emergency declaration, setting up president’s first veto
https://wapo.st/2TMFTZX

He's the president. He ought to have the support of the military. Is he suggesting that he would use them to play tough against "the left". I just don't see me going to Breitbart to source context.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:26 pm Congress: About that national emergency...

Senate votes to reject Trump’s emergency declaration, setting up president’s first veto
https://wapo.st/2TMFTZX

I find it rather disturbing that the President will soon be vetoing a check on his own power.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:33 pm He's the president. He ought to have the support of the military. Is he suggesting that he would use them to play tough against "the left". I just don't see me going to Breitbart to source context.

I don't think you understand. He has the military. The left has Hollywood. He has the police. The left has fake news. That's all a wash.

What tips the balance here, the turning point in American history, is the fact that he has Bikers for Trump. They are bikers. And they're for Trump. And they're tough apparently.

Skinypupy wrote:

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:26 pm Congress: About that national emergency...

Senate votes to reject Trump’s emergency declaration, setting up president’s first veto
https://wapo.st/2TMFTZX

I find it rather disturbing that the President will soon be vetoing a check on his own power.

Yeah, there is that. Can you imagine if Obama vetoed in this scenario?

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:03 pm What tips the balance here, the turning point in American history, is the fact that he has Bikers for Trump. They are bikers. And they're for Trump. And they're tough apparently.

It works for Maduro.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:04 pm

Skinypupy wrote:

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:26 pm Congress: About that national emergency...

Senate votes to reject Trump’s emergency declaration, setting up president’s first veto
https://wapo.st/2TMFTZX

I find it rather disturbing that the President will soon be vetoing a check on his own power.

Yeah, there is that. Can you imagine if Obama vetoed in this scenario?

Obama wasn't a god emperor.

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:37 pm Obama wasn't a god emperor.

See, this is what I don't get. In the middle east (including Egypt) you have people voting for less democracy. Less control over their own fates. You have students protesting and demanding less access to information and freedom.

Why on earth would anyone *want* someone else to be a god emperor? Why would you support that coming into being? Is it the Leopards Eating Peoples' Faces Party phenomenon?

Screw diplomacy, just go straight to the top!

I just spent 10 minutes typing and deleting answers to that. I got nuthin but snark.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:22 pm
Why on earth would anyone *want* someone else to be a god emperor? Why would you support that coming into being? Is it the Leopards Eating Peoples' Faces Party phenomenon?

Great Leader hates the people you hate.

Great Leader will not be deterred by petty scruples or mere law.

Great Leader promises MAGA Gains For Your Tribe Specifically.

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:53 pm I just spent 10 minutes typing and deleting answers to that. I got nuthin but snark.

Hey, nothing wrong with snark!

Seriously, though, since we can assume that Trump's phone has already been hacked by the Chinese, the Russians, and anyone else with rudimentary knowledge of old Android security holes, why can't friggin' American hackers get with the program and release the transcripts of his calls already? That would be the most patriotic thing any of them will ever do.

Snowden has an opinion on that.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:12 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:03 pm What tips the balance here, the turning point in American history, is the fact that he has Bikers for Trump. They are bikers. And they're for Trump. And they're tough apparently.

It works for Maduro.

And Putin has the Night Wolves.

Bob Seger, he ain't.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:22 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:37 pm Obama wasn't a god emperor.

See, this is what I don't get. In the middle east (including Egypt) you have people voting for less democracy. Less control over their own fates. You have students protesting and demanding less access to information and freedom.

Why on earth would anyone *want* someone else to be a god emperor? Why would you support that coming into being? Is it the Leopards Eating Peoples' Faces Party phenomenon?

Maybe they don't trust their fellow citizen?

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:59 pm Maybe they don't trust their fellow citizen?

Huh? Obviously they don't trust their fellow citizen. I don't trust my fellow citizen. Not trusting your fellow citizen is *why* a god emperor is a bad idea.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:22 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:37 pm Obama wasn't a god emperor.

See, this is what I don't get. In the middle east (including Egypt) you have people voting for less democracy. Less control over their own fates. You have students protesting and demanding less access to information and freedom.

Why on earth would anyone *want* someone else to be a god emperor? Why would you support that coming into being? Is it the Leopards Eating Peoples' Faces Party phenomenon?

Well, it's a *little* more complicated than that. Egyptians are (were?) voting on the "make Sissi god-emperor" referendum, but it's not like that's a free and fair voting situation. Everyone there fully knows that voting "no" on the god emperor referendum is going to get them consequences from the servants of the god emperor.

That said, people *do* vote for dictators from time to time (Chavez at least won his first election fair and square in Venezuela; Erdogan won early elections, etc.). That's some mix of: (1) delusion over what the person is obviously going to do (e.g., voting for the Face Eating Leopards Party); (2) belief that the country needs an "honest strongman" to cut through the bureaucrats that have been keeping the common people down; and (3) someone to punish "them" (whomever that 'them' might be) that have been bedeviling the common people.