Haha, I unironically considered this as well, but prefer the "always today, only today" clean automatic view and lack of a physical artifact to lose/forget.
I travel for work often enough that being able to get to it on my phone consistently is also an advantage.
printed/println debugging works if you wrote the code or have a good idea of where to go.
I frequently find myself debugging large unfamiliar code bases, and typically it’s much easier to stick a breakpoint in and start following where it goes rather than blindly start instrumenting with print statements and hoping that you picked the right code path.
Flight simulator games (i.e. Digital Combat Simulator) tend to be CPU bound, though, depending high-end VR or having enough monitors with enough pixels can quickly become GPU-limited, the underlying simulation, systems modelling, sensor simulations, AI, etc, will still all be CPU limited.
I suggested this on a thread in /r/cpp a few years ago, and was downvoted heavily, and chewed out for the reason that coding for ease of debugging was apparently akin to baby killing.
It’s worse than that. Find a random blog that gives you shell commands that add random repositories to your apt sources.list, adds the ssl keys, and installs packages from the repo, all through a paste to the command line.
>EVs generally will require less maintenance as they are substantially simpler vehicles with less moving parts.
I keep hearing this, but then keep seeing stories about huge repair bills and wait times for repairs on EVs, and threats of insurance rates for EVs to increase because of the high cost to repair.
A large percentage of the repair work on fossil fuel cars is body work, brakes, suspension, etc. All components that EVs have. I’m skeptical that this work will be cheaper on EVs than any other car.
The huge repair bills are in big part due to the fact that there are no spare parts.
Every part that can be manufactured is put into a new car and sold, there is very little surplus of parts. And what little is sold, is sold at a premium. Add a nonexistent 3rd party market to that and you've got a supply issue.
For my ICE car I could just go buy a generic part if I didn't care about the quality - and in some cases a cheaper part made for another brand (Skoda) that was 1:1 with the more expensive part (VW branded).
What doesn't break is the electric engine, there is one moving part, the shaft and excluding some outliers the engine will outlast the body of the vehicle many times over. Same with batteries, barring manufacturing issues or damage, the wear is very predictable and gradual.
This is what gives the (illusion of) reliability to EVs. There are very few mechanical parts that can just suddenly break and leave you stranded. Software and electronics though... =)
I also find peoples generatal non-response strange, though, I don't find Grusch's testimony that compelling: he didn't actually see anything, or really have any evidence. I find the US Navy pilot observations to be both more credible, and more interesting. Those I know who have looked into it, both IRl and online, both seem to take any debunking of the videos by Mick West to be the final word on the subject, but to me the videos are just short views into much longer encounters viewed by multiple people.
The response of the public at large seems both muted, and a bit off. US Navy pilots claim to see UFOs? The response largely seems to be "They're just Chinese spy balloons or something, who cares, yawn". But then actual Chinese spy balloons show up and the public/media loses their minds over it.
Navy pilot David Fravor, who has the most compelling story of any of them, has also admitted to perpetrating UFO hoaxes on people for shits and giggles. UFOlogists have decided to lean into America's "troop worship", holding up military personnel as paragons of virtue and honesty because respect muh troops, to turn these pilot witnesses into unimpeachable evidence. But David Fravor admitted on camera that he thought it was funny to create false UFO sightings with his plane. When this same man then starts making claims about UFOs "but totally for real this time", it takes serious credulity to take his claims at face value.
Fravors "Hoax" involved flying F/A-18E Super Hornets at low level, at night, over campfires they could see along their route and lighting their after burners. This was done in areas like Nellis where there are a lot of military jet activity. Anyone watching from the ground with any modicum of exposure to military jets would have immediately known from the site and sound exactly what it was. He was putting on a show. Did he otherwise publish videos, pictures, articles, or other media to try to otherwise "dupe" the public into believing that these were "UFOS"? No.
The context of the discussion in Fravors interview he was more jokingly describing some of the cowboy stunts that military pilots do that might be mistakingly interpreted as UFOs.
By his account he was deliberately creating fake UFO sightings.
> The context of the discussion in Fravors interview he was more jokingly describing some of the cowboy stunts that military pilots do that might be mistakingly interpreted as UFOs.
That may have been his intent in sharing the story, so what? Obviously he intended for the story to increase his credibility, but that doesn't mean it does. His story reveals that he thinks UFO hoaxing is funny. Or... he made up the story for some rhetorical reason or to impress Joe Rogan, which would make him a liar.
Imagine a used car salesman tells you "I know what you probably think about used car salesmen, and it's true that I've ripped some people off before. But in your case I'm going to be straight up and give you a great deal." This is a tactic taught in sales and persuasion books designed to make you trust the salesman; by admitting to some past transgressions they hope to make you feel as though they're being open and honest with you. But what does it actually tell you? Either the story of past transgressions is real, in which case the salesman has an admitted history of scamming people, or the story is made up and the salesman is lying to you to manipulate you. Either way you slice it, it's a huge red flag.
But, if Fravors story isn't credible because of that, to me it doesn't change much:
- The "tic tac" video recorded from that encounter wasn't recorded when Fravor was in the air, he was back at the carrier. It was a follow on flight that had their aircraft equipped with targetting pods.
- Fravor's aircraft had a backseat WSO who witnessed what Fravor saw, to my knowledge that officer hasn't spoken in public or denied Fravor's story
- There was a second aircraft in the air when Fravor had that encounter, also with a pilot and WSO. The pilot of that second aircraft has interviewed confirming Fravor's story.
- Radar operators from the Princeton operating the AEGIS radar have interviewed saying that they also saw the objects.
- To my knowledge no one, either in the air, on the carrier, or in the air wing has stepped forward and claimed that Fravor, or anyone else was lying, or making up stories.
It's always this same excuse. Fravor shared his UFO hoaxing story ostensibly to tell Joe Rogan that he knows how military jets might be misunderstood as UFOs, but that doesn't mean we're not allowed to draw any other conclusions from his story. His story, assuming it's real (assuming otherwise is even worse for Fravor's credibility), tells us that Fravor thinks that it's funny to deceive people about UFOs. I've seen the full video, I know the context. The context doesn't change anything.
> Distrust the car salesman? But the CONTEXT of him telling a story about scamming people was to tell me that he understands why people distrust car salesmen. The fact that he's being open about this tells me that he's being honest with me!
The ostensible context counts for shit, he admitted to being a UFO hoaxer in the past and he's either lying about that or telling the truth, but either way his word w.r.t. UFOs is now dogshit.
And the fact that his old colleagues haven't spoken out against him doesn't give me any confidence. There are a myriad of personal reasons that might be the case, including genuine affinity for the man who by all the accounts I've heard is very likeable in most if not all other respects. Mick West interviewed F-18 Pilot Brian Burke and Burke was gushing with praise of Farvor. Burke also said that he thinks Farvor would never perpetrate a UFO hoax himself, evidently unaware that Farvor already publicly admitted to doing so. So the professionals who worked with or adjacent to Farvor liked him, thinks he's trustworthy, and are apparently unaware or in denial of Farvor's prankster side. https://youtu.be/r3keF8rf7Ig?t=6300
It's also said in the JRE video, Fravor isn't the only military pilot to have done that stunt, and likely won't be the last. When pilots perform such flights, they aren't taking those jets out with the intention of performing a 'hoax'. They're going out on a normal night time low level qualification mission, where the parameters of the mission are to fly with lights off, at low level, along some routing, in a military range closed to other aviation traffic. Eventually, they have to climb up to elevation, and return to base, and there is some leeway in how that last part gets done, and they have chosen to do it close to campfires or other lights they see in their NVGs, while lighting the afterburner. Fravor also says in the JRE episode that they flew a lot of those missions, suggesting that there is a level of boredom and complacency. He also says that it was a restricted bombing range, so the campfires he sees are likely people who are tresspassing/sneaking into the range often with the intention of spotting/photographing fighter jets, so he wants to give them a bit of a show, also to let the campers know that the pilot know that they're there.
Fighter pilot culture wouldn't see such pranks as that big of a deal. That's why when people like Burke talk about Fravor they only see the decades of service to his country, about his conduct while commanding a fighter squadron, of leading other pilots into combat, or being a naval aviator. A simple prank at the end of a training mission that fighter pilots anywhere would chuckle over at the O'club doesn't rise to the level of needing to be mentioned, and wouldn't even stand out as being remarkable enough to even be remembered.
I also think when Burke is talking about a 'UFO Hoax', I think he is trying to say that he doesn't see Fravor perpetrating a false sighting, and then doing interview after interview about the Nimitz encounter and basically straight up lying with the intention of decieving the public. As I said above, the simple prank of lighting after burners over campfires over people likely trespassing on a restricted bombing range and along frequently used military training routes wouldn't rise to the level of being remarkable enough to be considered a 'hoax' in the eyes of a fellow fighter pilot. That is why Fravor doesn't bat an eye about telling the story, and that is why Burke doesn't mention it when discussing Fravors character or credibility. Also note that in Fravors campfire story, there is no lie, there is no deceit, there is no conspiracy and ongoing narrative to convince the public otherwise. To fighter pilots it's just a prank. Go to an airshow and you'll see the Blue Angles do basically the same thing. One fighter sneaks off low, and while the rest are doing acrobatics above, that one fighter comes in low over the crowd from out of sight and scares the daylights out of everyone. Fighter pilots love that stuff.
But, I take your point. I agree it doesn't help his credibility.
So, the sinister, diabolical, and self-admitted hoaxer Fravor, whos character has been compared to a sleezy used-car salesman online, somehow manages to get 60 nautical miles off the aircraft carrier during a training deployment without being spotted, deploy a drone/balloon, somehow gets back to the carrier in time to go on his training mission, spots his decoy, manages to convince another pilot that it's something strange, strange enough that they convince another pair of aircraft to go out and identify Fravors drone, and they manages to get it on their targetting pod... and then, in his vile deceitfulness, Fravor then does.... nothing, and basically tells no one.
That is until 13 years later, when the singer of Blink-182 goes on a fishing expedition with freedom of information requests, and somehow a short video segment of Fravors heinous hoax come to light.
I'd find it more concerning if it came from someone else close to Fravor that he'd trolled people before, but not from Fravor himself. He spoke about it on a public interview. Obviously it's not something he's worried about being known, and he's not worried about it hurting his credibility.
Sure, it seems unlikely that someone who has hoaxed UFOs in the past would be the one to have an actual encounter, but UFOs are pretty common in conversation and on peoples' minds, especially in the last couple decades. I'm sure many pilots have wondered what it might be like to encounter a UFO.
> We still have only one data point for life and one data point for intelligence.
Don't we have many points for both? There are ~8.7 million species on the planet. What we only have one data point for is a planet that contains life and intelligence.
Of course not - It's a small volume chemical. And blaming the Jones Act (as bad as it is) for a shipmnet from Illinois to Pennsylvania takes a certain kind of logic. OP is going to lose it when he realizes he can't blame "unions" for gutting the rail safety regulations that Obama added in 2015..
“The mission of the FRA is safety and not focusing on what is convenient or inexpensive or provides the most cost savings for the rail industry,” said Sarah Feinberg, the FRA administrator at the time, about the new rule. “When I focus on safety, I land on ECP. It’s a very black-and-white issue for me.”
Soon after the rule’s enactment, the railroad industry took the matter to Congress and found allies in Senate Republicans, after an election cycle that saw rail industry donors dump $6 million into GOP campaign coffers.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) — the Senate’s third largest recipient of rail industry campaign cash — pushed to repeal the electronic braking rule outright, before settling for a measure requiring additional research and a new cost-benefit analysis of the technology. Under former President Donald Trump, the braking upgrades quickly became another casualty of his administration’s slash-and-burn approach to regulatory policy.
While the Obama administration had estimated that the rule could save more than $1 billion by averting accidents, the Trump administration rolled out new figures that cut the estimated benefits by a third.
The AAR lobbying group concurred that “the costs of the ECP rule substantially outweigh its benefits,” and claimed the mandate would cost them about $3 billion — or roughly 2 weeks of their operating revenue in a typical year. The FRA estimated the brake requirement would cost about half a billion.
Trump’s Transportation Department ultimately rescinded the brake rule in late 2017.
Thune praised the decision in a statement arguing that “sound science and careful study” had won the day.
But a 2018 investigation from the Associated Press revealed that the Trump Transportation Department had flubbed its calculations. By excluding the most common type of train derailments, the government’s analysis omitted at least $117 million in estimated future damages when it revised the rule’s potential benefits to justify its repeal.
The agency acknowledged the error and issued a technical correction to its analysis, but said that the expense was still too great to reinstate the ECP brake rule.
