This comment is not full of factual inaccuracies. In-fact it doesn't cover the length and breadth of the atrocities happening in India. To cite some examples:
- Kanhaiya Kumar (cited above), hundreds of students and even 10 year olds have sedition cases against them.
- The competition has been decimated. BJP spends 3X more than all of the other parties combined together in Elections
- Section 144 (prohibiting assembly of 4 or more people) has been arbitrarily applied across India.
- Free press has been demolished and right wing mouthpieces are both propped up and given a free run. False cases against The Hindu, NDTV, Hostile takeover of CNN-IBN etc.. I can cite a dozen more examples
- BJP losing state elections mean noting. Modi's role model is Xi. He wants to be benovalent dictator of life.
It is factually inaccurate. VPNs are running all across India except in Kashmir. Stop this hyperbole. You can fool some people some of the time but not all people all the time.
> The competition has been decimated. BJP spends 3X more than all of the other parties combined together in Elections
How is this an atrocity? This is legitimate right of every party to spend how much ever it gets as donations from the public. The Congress held the ubiquitous position for 60 years. No one questioned political spending then. Why is BJP being questioned for the same now? Just because the public resonate with BJP's National policies and donate to the party? Now will this also be termed as an atrocity? Can't believe the nuts that exist in India.
> Section 144 (prohibiting assembly of 4 or more people) has been arbitrarily applied across India.
Section 144 cannot be arbitrarily applied. Section 144 is imposed by a Magistrate who is an Administrator not an elected official. And a Magistrate will never apply Section 144 arbitrarily without there being a valid cause. And Section 144 is better than riots. Prevention is better than cure. When it comes to choosing between disorder, damage to public property, rioting protestors, communal clashes and Section 144, I would choose Section 144 any day.
Modi is one of those individuals who has been vilified by one community for almost 20 odd years now. It's nothing new. And the amount of media bashing he gets every day even Manmohan Singh did not get the same treatment. No matter how much you lie that there is no freedom to express in India it is infact the exact opposite. Media that is anti-Modi and anti-BJP: NDTV, The Wire, Quint, The Hindu, Indian Express, Newslaundery, ABP News, Aaj Tak, India Today and countless other regional news channels and smaller outlets. The cases filed against some of the media houses are not "false". They are involved in money laundering and are being investigated for the same. No court has said that the cases are "false". This is again malicious propaganda. Show me on case which the Indian Courts have ruled as "fake". Not one.
Sedition cases are slapped against those who have called for break up of the country. It is a case. It is not a conviction. It is a legitimate right of the Government to file cases against those who indulge in Anti-India activities. If Modi was emulating Xi he would have gotten Kanhaiya Kumar killed not have some sedition case slapped on him. Why would he bother taking the legal route if he was a Dictator? Never heard of a Dictator filing legal cases. If this is what you call as "Modi emulating Xi" then I say it is a pathetic attempt at emulating Xi.
Your own arguments fall flat the moment you start dig into the facts instead of becoming emotional!
What is happening in Shaheen Bagh? A protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act that has been going on for more than 40 days where a public road has been blocked. Any other country you would have had riot police beat up the protestors and have them evacuated for causing nuisance to public. We can understand 1 or 2 days of protests but 40 days? This is ridiculous. 40 days of public road being blocked! Which Dictator will allow that? Have some shame.
> And Section 144 is better than riots. Prevention is better than cure.
To prevent riots government needs to produce better policies, so that there would be no need for a riot in the first place. Preventing peaceful assembly is not one of these policies.
> Preventing peaceful assembly is not one of these policies
No one prevented peaceful assembly. Shaheen Bagh is the best example where protestors have captured a public road illegally for 60+ days and neither the Government nor the Police are doing anything about it. Police and Administration only take action against rioters or those who indulge in vandalism of public property. The Deputy Commissioner of the local district gets first hand information on everything that happens in the district. The DC knows beyond doubt if the gathering is going to be peaceful or violent. We have highest levels of intelligence gathering and that has only increased and strengthened manifold after various terror attacks. Hence why the Supreme Court doesn't take the Centre to task neither does the High Court take the State to task over imposition of Section 144. The judges instead just give a rap on the fingers. That is because the administration has all details about the nature of protests and can provide adequate proof. If you really want to understand all this you should spend sometime with retired IAS officers and if they get to like you will tell you the workings of the system. You can't fool the administration into thinking that you can riot in the guise of "peaceful protests". The administration has various ways of intelligence gathering and knows exactly what the outcome of the gathering would be.
Another instance of what's happening now: The ruling party is promoting hate speech against anyone who is liberal, left leaning or left of center and anyone who expresses dissent, who disagrees with the government..
And so there have been numerous clear instances of violence against university students, professors and protestors on the street.
The children have been questioned for 4-5 days at a stretched and a parent has been detained without being named in the police report illegally. It is absurd, to what length that this nationalist government would go to remain in power. I feel sorry for these kids and all those who are suffering at the hands of this government.
Of course you wan't a government with the nations interest at heart. But I don't think the phrase is just a slur.
Governments that are described as nationalist have a tendency to find enemies within its own borders by claiming that a subset of the population aren't true nationals because they don't originate from the country or because they don't share some cultural norm.
Just as a hypothetical... Is it possible for a minority within a nation to be hostile to the majority? And if so, how do you propose to deal with the issue of having a fifth column within your borders?
Is it possible? Yes. But that doesn't make it a "fifth column". The country is not the majority, it's everyone. Maybe start dealing with it by looking at why the minority is hostile, and creating a country where they feel included rather than excluded.
You are shadowbanned. You might want to do something about that. (you can begin by increasing the quality of your posts. posting "You just posed a question no socialist can truthfully answer!" lowers the quality of the discussion)
>This appears to be a slur of some sort. What kind of government would you want for your nation other than a nationalistic one?
given that this incident seems to be sparked by the children's opposition to the anti-muslim legislation, it's safe to assume that "nationalist" really means "hindu-nationalist".
I am a bit hesitant to engage with this comment. I am not sure whether it comes a lack of understanding of what Nationalism actually means, in which case education will consist of reading history, or wether you understand what it means and think it is appropriate to turn a secular country into a Hindu nation and disenfranchise hundreds of millions of non Hindus.
Nationalism has (and this is getting quite political) a shameful and ugly record in history. It is not something to aspire to nor is it an ideology you should find particularly appealing.
As a Muslim immigrant entrepreneur living in the Valley, I had to call my parents to allay their fears of the current law. A community of 200 million feels threatened.
I don’t understand how immigrants from India support modi. Is it because he panders to our immigrant egos?
We are a minority in this country and as one community we face the continued threat of right wing groups here., despite that I am amazed by the support of the same kind or worse right wing party in India.
Is there a easy to use Golang library for eBPF? I do know that Cilium / cloudflare are attempting to build one but I gather that the project is not yet ready
Can you define ready? The functionality of the library is solid, it's based on code we're using in production. We've not committed to a stable API however.
There's a limited instruction set, no loops, built in verifier exists so that no anomalous code can be executed on the in kernel virtual machine. More so, this feature is in 4.X kernel and I think there's been no exploit discovered in the wild.
> More so, this feature is in 4.X kernel and I think there's been no exploit discovered in the wild.
There won't be an exploit for bpf. It's kind of a different layer and it's own system. "Exploit in bpf" is about the same level as "exploit in C". There's just no such general thing.
I used to bump into Vlad and Sergey in Hackerdojo when they were hacking the very early version of Webflow.. I used the very first version and loved it..
Amazing story of persistence and focus. Keep up the great work folks!
I did not realize that YC News had religious trolls making random assertions on how a certain region is harmonious and another is not simply because they follow another religion.
The OP is just saying that, because of a not-too-far-in-time religion shift among people of a certain part of that country, there are conflicts. The rest is just your imagination.
It is factual to say that some cultures more than others are more conducive to the general well being of everyone, especially if we can agree on the baseline that the worst possible suffering for everyone is BAD, and everything else is better and you build up from that.
Some scriptures have seriously bad ideas in them, such as direct calls for violence against certain minority groups and people professing different beliefs from the majority. Some cultures are so integrated or intwined with these scriptures that it would be intellectually dishonest to say they do not influence and play a major part in the culture. The link is stronger in some cultures than what we are used to in a modern mostly secular west. Currently some cultures are simply not the best place for women or non heterosexuals to be in, that is a fact.
Change towards bettering these cultures can not happen if ideas can not be discussed openly and the cultures and some of their core tenets can not be criticized. It is not racism or racist or whateverphobic to criticize islam the religion and certain similar aspects of cultures surrounding it in muslim majority countries.
That is not to say that other cultures don't have issues but for example Buddha did not call for killing gays and unbelievers and spreading the faith through violence, even if some people in countries that profess being majority buddhist do cause violence. [1] I just don't think it's feasible to throw the Pali canon or core tenets of buddhist thought at someone to manufacture suicide bombers of them.
Majid Nawaz, a former radical islamist who was jailed in Egypt for being part of what could be called an extremist (or even terrorist?) organization has been making rounds talking about having a 'war of ideas' and the need for reforming islam. [2] He co-authored a book with Sam Harris called 'Islam and the Future of Tolerance'. The book explores islam and some of its dangerous doctrines and how the muslim world needs to embrace reform to bring their culture to the 21st century. [3]
Don't exactly agree on that assertion. History shows that one can make that argument about a lot of religions. It is more so to do with the geopolitical ambitions of nation states at respective times.
In the modern era - many nation states have fallen behind on a lot of indicators - human development index, scientific innovation, education etc., and all of them directly / indirectly contribute to instability.
Rookie pilot here. Large airplanes have drive by wire systems where the plane pretty much flies itself. But when certain instruments like the Pitot tube don't work then the control is handed over to pilots and they operate in alternate law, where they are responsible for the actions.
If instruments cannot measure key environmental indicators such as velocity, temperature etc - no amount of automation will save the plane.
Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) / Instrument Flight Rating (IFR) flights are when the plane is flying through darkness, or through conditions that do not allow for a judgement of the visual elements and therefore pilots can easily make incorrect judgement calls on the position of the plane, leading to a crash.
The pitot tube is a primitive equipment to measure wind velocity and easily can be jammed by ice, insects etc. I think it was the Pitot tube malfunction in this plane that caused the incident.
What's being called into question here is the alpha vane (which measures the angle of attack) and AoA disagree warning -- of which the 737 has two and none respectively. This means that there's no quorum (need 3+ vanes for that) and no way for the pilots to know if there's a problem with the AoA data being fed into the computers.
I believe the issue is that this hidden system (MCAS) relies on AoA data which can, per the above, not be validated by the pilots or the computers. Thus the fear is that the plane will go full nose down for no obvious reason. Granted the emergency AD indicates some secondary indicators that your AoA vanes have gone wonky.
Per the AA email:
> The MCAS function becomes active when the airplane Angle of Attack exceeds a threshold based on airspeed and altitude. Stabilizer incremental commands are limited to 2.5 degrees and are provided at a rate of 0.27 degrees per second. The magnitude of the stabilizer input is lower at high Mach number and greater at low Mach numbers. The function is reset once angle of attack falls below the Angle of Attack threshold or if manual stabilizer commands are provided by the flight crew. If the original elevated AOA condition persists, the MCAS function commands another incremental stabilizer nose down command according to current aircraft Mach number at actuation.
IOW hey the plane might try to kill you and while you're busy trying not to die at 5,000 ft please disable the electronic aids and grab the trim wheels by hand. Noting, of course, that it take the computer ~30 seconds to move the stabilizer from one end of its travel to the other. It'll take a person longer if you're cranking it by hand. This is, of course, all after the pilots have realized what the problem actually is. All of this at five thousand feet where you might not have 30 seconds to respond. I'd suggest that if this scenario is at all close to what transpired those pilots didn't have a chance.
> no way for the pilots to know if there's a problem with the AoA data
Just to clarify, with two AoA sensors, you can know that there is a problem (if they disagree), but you don't know which one is erroneous.
What I find surprising about this crash is that even if there's an indication of unreliable readings, the automation proceeds to actively do stuff - I thought Boeing philosophy was to hand everything to the pilots in such a case.
> I'd suggest that if this scenario is at all close to what transpired those pilots didn't have a chance.
Yeah, absolutely devastating. In the time they had, how were they supposed to diagnose that error condition (automatic down trim), given that a) it sneakily recurs every now and then, and b) it was not prepared/trained for?
> Just to clarify, with two AoA sensors, you can know that there is a problem (if they disagree), but you don't know which one is erroneous.
The AoA disagree alert is an optional feature on the 737[1]. My understanding is that the AoA display is optional as well[2] but does not break down the info per vane. I don't know if the gauge and alert are bundled together or available separately. So maybe you can know, maybe not.
That a feature that notifies you that two flight critical sensors are disagreeing is optional is mind blowing to me. It’s like discovering that brakes are optional on the new Mercedes C Class.
Interesting. What I meant to say is that even if the pilots had no way of knowing, the computer should notice and drop into a failure mode (that does not involve trimming down again and again, until the pilot sticks an umbrella in the trim wheel).
I'd be surprised if this was the case. Typically redundancy like this is handled by having A and B systems on commercial aircraft. In the case of flight instruments this is usually divided by pilot and co-pilot systems. They have a separate AHRS (Attitude and Heading system) and their flight instruments show data from each system independently.
If you watch a cockpit video of an airliner taking off you will usually hear the co-pilot announce "80 knots" and the pilot reply "cross-checked". What they are doing is checking that their air-sensor data agrees (within a reasonable margin) for the most critical information at that stage of flight (since takeoff speed is very important with the modern wing shape on an airliner).
Similarly they have A and B autopilot systems which are driven independently by two AHRS units (except in special cases like during auto-land where both systems are operational).
Which is all to say that I think they likely have two separate AoA sensors. Although, perhaps being an optional element the failure of one doesn't automatically trigger a AHRS disagree message.
> Which is all to say that I think they likely have two separate AoA sensors.
Correct, the 737 NG has two separate alpha vanes[1] and I believe the MAX does as well. However the "alpha vanes disagree" alert is a paid option per the emergency AD. Likewise the AoA indicator is a paid option. There is redundancy, but the plane may be configured such that the pilot cannot determine if there is a failure.
Failure of one or both alpha vanes on an NG isn't a good thing, but failure of an alpha vane on a MAX could cause MCAS to essentially try to kill you and without that AoA disagree alert you may not know why because you've never been informed about this system, and at low altitude you likely wouldn't have time to figure out what's going on.
Edit: if that all sounds fucking insane, it is. That's why American and Southwest pilot unions are livid[2].
Okay, so Boeing added an electronic safety feature (with a deadly failure mode) necessitated by physical changes and regulation. They didn't mention it for marketing reasons. They made an indicator of the deadly failure mode of the feature a paid option. Got it.
Reading a little between the lines this is probably related to the pitch - power coupling present on all modern airliners. This is due to the thrust line being below the centre of lift meaning that increasing power causes a pitch up moment.
In the 737 Max this probably got exacerbated to the point that it was possible to fly the plane into a stall by sharply increasing power in a high AoA situation (typically in a go-around). This was probably different enough to the 737NG that they felt it necessary to add the MCAS system to prevent having to do, what they considered, excessive differences training in that phase of flight.
Could well be; I read somewhere that it was related to the ever bigger engines (for more efficient (higher) bypass ratio), which presumably have a lower centre of thrust.
They lengthened the nose gear 20cm to fit the new engines with the same ground clearance. Must have dropped the thrust centre line nearly half of that.
Well the Seattle Times quoted an ex-Boeing employee thusly:
> A former Boeing executive, speaking on condition of anonymity because discussion of accident investigations is supposed to be closely held, said that Boeing engineers didn’t introduce the change to the flight-control system arbitrarily.
> He said it was done primarily because the much bigger engines on the MAX changed the aerodynamics of the jet and shifted the conditions under which a stall could happen. That required further stall protection be implemented to certify the jet as safe.
> That's why American and Southwest pilot unions are livid[2]
Wow, the information in that Seattle Times article is really damning! Differences training from the 737 NG to the MAX consisted of a one hour iPad session (plus crosswind training because the permissible roll is reduced due to vertical wing tips). Livid indeed.
That’s actually incredibly common in the airline world. The issue isn’t so much the delivery method but more that information was withheld entirely. A brief description of this system allowing enough operational knowledge to be safe would only add a few minutes to the same iPad training.
There's actually some precedent for this happening: AA flight 191, a DC-10 that crashed in 1979, wasn't equipped with two stick shakers (a stall warning device) - a paid option at the time.
The series of events that caused the accident are a long story, but power was knocked out to the pilot's controls (where the one stick shaker was installed), but not the copilot's controls (which didn't have a stick shaker due to the selected options). TBH, it's doubtful that the pilots could have recovered in that specific situation, but the chances of success dropped to basically zero when they didn't have a device capable of communicating what was happening to them in time.
Of course, this is obviously different than having no warning system for the type of failure whatsoever (as appears to be the case on the MAX), but it was still a little surprising for me.
Good info thanks. But yeah, with a stick shaker there are many other ways for the pilots to get the same info, so I can sort of understand that as being optional for the copilot. Obviously not ideal, but at the end of the day engineering is nothing but compromise management :)
>Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) / Instrument Flight Rating (IFR) flights are when the plane is flying through darkness
In the US flight in darkness is not flight in IMC. Neither does darkness impose instrument flight rules. Recall that IMC is governed by ceiling, proximity to visible moisture, and visibility: Fail one of those criterion and you're in IMC, governed by IFR.
A pilot lacking an instrument rating may fly in pitch black, no moon, (high) overcast over an ocean and still be VFR compliant. Whether it's wise or not is a different issue...
- Kanhaiya Kumar (cited above), hundreds of students and even 10 year olds have sedition cases against them.
- The competition has been decimated. BJP spends 3X more than all of the other parties combined together in Elections
- Section 144 (prohibiting assembly of 4 or more people) has been arbitrarily applied across India.
- Free press has been demolished and right wing mouthpieces are both propped up and given a free run. False cases against The Hindu, NDTV, Hostile takeover of CNN-IBN etc.. I can cite a dozen more examples
- BJP losing state elections mean noting. Modi's role model is Xi. He wants to be benovalent dictator of life.
- State sponsored violence in India is the norm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq-HQ7boPvE