This. For all the, "Where's my jetpack?" angst in the world of science fiction fanboys (I am one) and start-up builders, there seems to be a disconnect with the rest of humanity on this issue. If the chance of failure is > 0% and odds of death on failure is > 95%, I don't see how a product like this will ever become more than a pipe dream, or at best a prototype flown by a thrill seeker over open water for a publicity stunt.
Edit: After reflecting on this I realize that airplanes probably fall into these statistics, at least for catastrophic failure anyway. I'd be curious to examine statistics in more detail to figure out what a comfortable level of risk would be, but for now, I guess I fall into the ranks of your typical armchair critic on this one.
Commercial airplanes are much safer than cars (because they're rigorously maintained, observed, and operated by professionals). Little ultralight planes might be the best analogy for this project - but they're used by thrill-seekers, just like you predicted.
Commercial airplanes are usually able to safely glide under engine failures. A jetpack is going to drop out the sky. Just from glancing at this flying bike, if the power cuts above 10m, you're probably going to die.
Fixed wing can glide, helicopters can autorotate, open rotor e-vtols don’t autorotate because they don’t have variable pitch blades and their inertia is way too low anyway. jet-vtols have no rotor blades at all so... you’re right if an e-vtol or jet-vtol experiences a catastrophic failure then it’s going straight down! Many of the e-vtol companies say they solve this by having x levels of redundancy..we don’t buy that at JPA. We want to build a saftey system that can rescue the pilot from 5 feet or 50 feet or 5000 feet. Now that’s a challenge! But we believe doable.
It's fascinating to meet people like this with the intention of learning about confirmation bias. It's amazing the delusions people will grip on to maintain social status and some semblance of personal integrity and stability of belief systems. The great lengths of logical delusions some people make up to support their claims is noticeable in extreme cases like this. Of course, we are all subject to this bias and when you are in it, you don't know you are. https://samharris.org/the-fireplace-delusion/ (Disclaimer, I'm triggered by both viewpoints in this reference, but at least I recognize where some of my own biases are. What a funny brain we have.)
To further add to your point: developers now have control over the means to production and, unlike the industrial revolution, we programmers do not need access to capital and expensive manufacturing equipment to build a product. We just need some technical skills that are essentially free to learn. And as the best of us figure out how to add the entrepreneurial talent stack into our own, existing corporations have to pay us as consultants or continue to increase pay to keep that talent. In time, I think we will see it is the corporate structure that is in a bubble. (See "Developer Hegemony" by Erik Dietrich)
No. Don't do this. I don't want the comments here to have a chilling filter like this. We need diversity of opinions even if some of them aren't liked. That is part and parcel of healthy debate. There should be fringe opinions on the sidelines getting attention - that's how we innovate. Tools like this are chilling, sensor ideas that may be controversial but innovative, and stifle healthy dialog.
Would you share the same thought if you had read my comment history? People post dumb, uninteresting things all the time. I don't want a collection of my dumb thoughts to follow me around.
After reading through some of your older, down-voted comments, I noticed a trend of rebuttals. Both your comments and their replies are valuable points of conversation in the topics. While you may think some are
> dumb, uninteresting
That is a subjective opinion, and that's okay. If I was searching Hacker News on a topic, I expect to see both sides, or multiple sides, of a topic so I can try and make an informed opinion myself. Are those old posts, "dumb" and "uninteresting" and merely because they are down-voted? I would argue that while some may share this view, I do not, and I find great value in the debate and multiple opinions, and I suspect I'm not alone in this regard.
If the down-voted comments are removed, the conversation becomes heavily one-sided and it is confusing to the reader what is being argued. Just because an opinion is down-voted or unpopular, doesn't mean it is wrong. As Max Planck said, "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." The discussion as a whole has more value than the individual contributions, and we loose that discussion with this kind of censorship, and with it a path to new ideas.
I really appreciate your reply, thank you. I agree that the posts are valuable when framed with the context of discussion, but when you collect them as "the thoughts of jbob2000", the context changes and they become dangerous to me individually.
I think the problem is that my post history is public, actually. If I could pick and choose which of my comments to add to my profile, I would be less inclined to delete my old comments.
TV's, Software, and Toys are cheaper, and notably the only categories cheaper on that chart from BLS. Well, it looks like this is good at keeping rioting off the streets; everyone is too distracted consuming tech.
I would pay good money to test this hypothesis. I don't think its as simple as consuming tech though. I wonder how much effect cannabis legalization, opiod use etc. have on keeping a restive population dormant.
>"Access to developers is a bigger constraint than access to capital"
As software continues to eat the world, I am reminded of Uncle Bob's blog on a Hippocratic Oath for software developers and the gravity behind the consequences of what we produce.
It's only a matter of time before the discussion changes from "Developer Coefficient" to much more dire tone. To quote Bob Martin,
"With that great power ought to come great responsibility. And, indeed, society will hold us responsible when our actions result in disaster. And yet nothing binds us together as a profession. We share no ethics. We share no discipline. We share no standards. We are viewed, by our employers, as laborers. We are tools for others to command and use. We have no profession."
Ethics is fine and most of us probably believe that we are doing a proper job at any point in time but to look back in 10 years and say that code you wrote when you were 18 years old 3 companies ago is having a bad effect now is unlikely to illicit any practical response other than making insurance and legal companies richer.
Unfortuantely, it is harder to measure how "good" things should be in software engineering compared to the need for a bridge to stay up or a doctor to not make somebody sick.
I could see governments introducing laws that say every company who writes software need certain credentials etc. but as we already know, ISO registrations or PCI certifications do not actually mean the people who do the work know what they are doing well enough.
There is the ACM Code of Ethics that some of us subscribe to. Though I understand if many people have never heard of such a thing.
I've personally found it very difficult to discuss ethics and professionalism. Many SWEs either don't care or see it as an opportunity to try to inject their personal ethics. Neither is helpful in formulating a professional ethical system.
I think a healthy level of social media use is to share photos, and ask for advice and recommendations. Anything else is social engineering that you are a deliberate manipulator of or unbeknownst participator. Flame bait, click bait, emotionally charged posts of the troll-or-be-trolled should be avoided. Also, comparison is the thief of joy. Don't do it. If you find yourself feeling inadequate compared to others, just keep in mind that most people feel that way, consciously or not. Keep in mind that you should only ever compare yourself to your past self, not to other people.
As long as consumers follow along, this will not change. We've allowed the US healthcare system to become a toxic cesspool of greedy insurance companies with laughable and corrupt government oversight. IMHO, The only way this changes is if everyone stops paying.
> IMHO, The only way this changes is if everyone stops paying.
Great! I'll start the next time I need a medical procedure. Of course, this protest will get only more and more effective - once my bill is sent to collections, and I'm forced into bankruptcy and become homeless, I'll amass all sorts of medical maladies!
The reply next yours says the same thing without the toxic feel that makes the internet a slightly worse place for everyone. Go out in that big world and find something that makes you a happier person.
You're right. Today's been a rough day, and I keep trying to tell myself that if I don't have anything constructive to say, I shouldn't say anything at all - but I can't seem to listen :/
Edit: After reflecting on this I realize that airplanes probably fall into these statistics, at least for catastrophic failure anyway. I'd be curious to examine statistics in more detail to figure out what a comfortable level of risk would be, but for now, I guess I fall into the ranks of your typical armchair critic on this one.