Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | WalterBright's commentslogin

I buy cheap running shoes. I replace them when they wear through the sole. The shoe brands means absolutely nothing to me.

It didn't hurt me any. I just bought a cheaper brand.

In D, the covariance/contravariance of contract inheritance is an important aspect of the contracts.

My current car is 54 years old. I bought it in 1986.

Is it sitting on blocks on your lawn or does it actually roll?

It's called maintenance. And probably a diesel engine.

Nah. It's got its original 340 V8, but bored, stroked, ported, forged crank & rods, gear drive, roller cam system. Dynoed at 400 hp.

I can't remember seeing another one (Dodge Challenger) on the road for decades.

My original plan was to swap in a 383 big block. I talked it over with a Mopar motorhead, and he said the big block unbalanced the car, and was difficult to work on because it didn't really fit in the car. He said the 340 would produce a lot of power reliably. I took his advice and didn't regret it. The car is terrifying when one steps hard on the gas.


That's awesome! And probably outranks anything I've seen (or heard).

It's an E-ticket ride, that's for sure! All old school.

I drive it a couple times a week. Sorry to disappoint you!!

> A small slice of those subsidies would make a big difference for people at the bottom.

More than half of the federal budget is for entitlements.


You’re missing the part of the budget that no longer exists because of tax reductions for the wealthy.

Also, so what? It should be more.


Taxes were not reduced for the wealthy.


There were many new tax deductions, but they did not apply to the wealthy as they were phased out at higher income levels.

I've eschewed collision insurance, and what I've saved on those premiums is far more than the cars were worth.

> no excuses

Airplanes don't pay any attention to excuses. The only way to fly is do it perfectly, every time.


> You expect this behaviour from a first-timer in the sim, not a commercial cargo pilot.

I'm curious - are commercial pilots reprimanded for doing a go-round after messing up the approach?


No. They might have to say why they went around but they can't be punished for it (that's a great way to open yourself up to liability even stripping away all of the human elements). And I can't imagine any reason that an airline would truly care since they don't want their planes crashing so they don't want to discourage pilots from going around if they need to do so. The delay incurred is usually fairly small anyways, maybe 20-30 minutes.

However I will say that the majority of unstable approaches (97%!!) do continue to landing: https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Go-aroun...

...but I think that most of these unstable approaches are likely marginally unstable and only in one dimension. This landing was so far outside the realm of normal it's actually mind boggling that it actually happened. Pilots are trained to immediately go around without questioning it if many of the things that happened on this flight occur (such as not being in landing configuration well before touching down!)


No, they're reprimanded for continuing.

https://skybrary.aero/tutorials/stabilised-approach


The most ridiculous one was a poster who claimed that MCAS would run the trim at double the rate of the trim switches.

The trim motors only have 2 speeds - on and off.


Somebody's got to work. Look at all the nice goodies we have.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: