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

My uncle did a gear-up landing that way a number of years ago. He was fine, but the plane was a total loss from a financial perspective. It was a Moonie, and the prop hit the ground, which forced an engine rebuild as I understand it.

Scary, but as they say any landing you walk away from...



I assure you it was an airplane and not a cultist.

WhatsApp belongs to Meta.

Why would anyone believe those chats are private?


This is one of my favorite Old Internet tales. It's up there with "Mel, The Real Programmer."

Absolute classic if anybody else is interested in reading:

https://users.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html

Mel was for sure on another level:

It was a long time before I understood that remark. Since Mel knew the numerical value of every operation code, and assigned his own drum addresses, every instruction he wrote could also be considered a numerical constant. He could pick up an earlier "add" instruction, say, and multiply by it, if it had the right numeric value. His code was not easy for someone else to modify.


I also enjoy the one about testing bird strike tolerances with store-bought chicken.

After an ongoing ugly experience with a GTI, we'll never buy another VW.

+1, poor design and reparability

There is no morally defensible reason to work for Palantir.

Do you purchase unilever products? Nike shoes? Etc, etc, etc.

Not to be flippant, but morals are variable.

Two of my kids are into investing, and some of their choices are 'morally indefensible', to me.

We've had the discussions since they were old enough to be taught 'right' from wrong.

Their aims are to increase the money they have, not to make anyone feel better, or judge others' choices.


I'm sorry, but the goal does not justify the means. Someone who wants to get more money, does not get a free pass on how this is achieved. As many have said: your actions show your morals.

> Do you purchase unilever products? Nike shoes? Etc, etc, etc.

So you actually support that idea.


Lots has been written about this.

The post-9/11 freakout is a GREAT example of the syllogism "Something must be done! This is something, so we must do it!" -- IOW, a train of thought that includes absolutely no evaluation of efficacy.

Security expert Bruce Schneier noted, I believe, that the only things that came out of the post-9/11 freakout that mattered were (a) the reinforced cockpit door and (b) ensuring all the checked bags go with an actual passenger.

The ID requirement, for example, was a giveaway to the airlines to prevent folks from selling frequent-flier tickets (which was absolutely a common thing back then). (And wouldn't have mattered on 9/11 anyway, since all the hijackers had valid ID.)


If I recall correctly, it was WIDELY reported by sane, savvy people that no such liquid agents existed that could be combined onboard in this way.

Are there examples you can point to?


I feel like you're starting this with a sympathetic eye towards O'Keefe, who is not now nor has he ever been a good-faith actor. You're also obscuring that the diary was stolen property, which law enforcement absolutely does "raid" homes to recover.


This seems related to a hallucinogen-related epiphany I had once whilst hanging out with a gamer-heavy crowd 30 years ago. It's this:

All games share one unwritten rule, which is that if you can convince all the other players that you've won, the game is over.


This seems incomplete, as in many games, one player winning does not interrupt the game. You're just first to leave the table, but others keep playing for 2nd, 3rd, and up to nth (last) place.


Ok, fair. In most games, though, once there's a winner, play stops.


My favorite thing about Mornington Crescent is that, if you're not careful, you could end up "in spoon."

This post is 2/3 of the way through naming my three favorite fictional games! The 3rd member is, of course, 43-Man Squamish, the rules of which I cannot read without laughing so hard I weep.

https://madcoversite.com/quiz_olympics.html


Reminds me of that one messed up game[0] in 17776[1] (which I highly recommend reading from the start) Specifically in that the rules for an entirely different kind of game seem to have grown out of control.

[0] https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football/you-know-what-neve...

[1] https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football/


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

Search: