> How can you comment as if you are knowledgeable enough about aviation to speak on this with authority, but you aren't aware that ...
This is par for the course for HN; smart people applying first-principle thinking on unfamiliar domains for about a minute, which confirms the biases of other outsiders who vote the plausible, but not-quite-right comments to the top.
This is par for the course for HN; smart people failing to interpret a comment in a charitable light, preferring instead to author a condescending reply in an apparent effort to score imaginary points at the expense of intellectually stimulating conversation.
So presumably OP never took jets 101. Neither have I. So what? The condescension remains unjustified and contrary to fruitful interaction. (See also the "lucky 10000" xkcd.)
HN is particularly notorious for armchair aviation experts. I am an aerospace engineer having worked in airworthiness & certification as well as maintenance/repair/overhaul on multiple different aircraft types both fixed and rotary. I mention this only to establish my bona fides as someone who knows their shit:
The comments here during the 737 MAX MCAS thing were fucking wild. So many randoms spitting out confidently incorrect nonsense.
HN is notorious for armchair <insert-topic> experts for <insert-topic> you actually know, outside of software, computing/computing-adjacent electronic hardware and startups. “Fucking wild” “confidently incorrect nonsense” is likely the norm on most fringe topics, judging by the few I know about.
I've worked on several engine families engine certification, I can't read threads about aviation on HN because my brain hurts too much from people who know nothing posting like they are experts nonstop.
It actually causes me stress because a) I need to prevent myself from posting corrections and b) from knowing that these people are everywhere and are posting fud about trains or something
That’s all forums in a nut shell. Any time you read about something you’re not personally familiar with it’s “look at all these people who know what they’re talking about… “, as soon as it’s something you are personally familiar with it’s “wtf are these people on about?!”
“Gell-Mann Amnesia“ - usually applied to media when experts scoff at stories they know to be sometimes woefully inaccurate but still accept all the other pages as gospel.
> he just comes off as funny on twitter once you've met him.
Never heard of the guy before today, but his dickish, edge-lord aura (on X and in this thread) makes me not want to meet him. If I had to choose between buying from him, or some other random dude, I'll hear out the random dude first.
Oh no, how am I ever going to avoid giving my custom to someone who has allegedly cornered the market on - checks notes - a db proxy? Give me a break.
I can think of at least 4 other ways of scaling horizontally without switching DB engines. I'd have to be mightily constrained to have this particular product as the only option.
Sure, I don't doubt your ability to do so yourself. I just question your ability to trust some random unknown figure with your data if you have enough scale. That's quite different, actually.
Using AI to find a vulnerability is not a work of authorship. Using the AI generated text as your bug report would be, but if you use AI to find a bug, then write up a report yourself, I think that would be fine.
> If manufacturing ever became Google's Achilles heel, they can take a majority stake in something like VinFast and manufacture a Google car.
They won't even have to (partially) buy any manufacturer - they can utilize contract manufacturers like Magna Steyr (which made the Jaguar I-Pace) or Foxconn, or lean on/expand partnerships like the one they have with Toyota.
I said that on the assumption that they want control and guarantees that Google's needs get serviced. Otherwise they can partner with any manufacturer to incorporate the tech, like they do on the software side. But they could be dropped at any time.
I was shocked to see Google's AI panel show my niece Bluey fan-fiction[1] as authoritative fact, sourced from an wiki (may have been a fandom wiki, IIRC).
Independent wikis have variable quality, pagerank isn't enough to gate the quality.
1. The infobox showed Mackenzie's full name as "Mackenzie Heeler", based on fanfic about grown-up Mackenzie marrying Bluey and taking up her last name. It also included names of their made-up kids.
It's not snobbery, reading and listening activate different parts of your brain and you'll experience them differently. Just like reading an interview transcript is different to listening to an interview.
This is par for the course for HN; smart people applying first-principle thinking on unfamiliar domains for about a minute, which confirms the biases of other outsiders who vote the plausible, but not-quite-right comments to the top.
reply