I am in the exactly same situation than OP. I tend to think advanced calculus is key to think well: domains, limits, restrictions, functional math. Is that accurate?
Limits are a calculus/Geometry concept. A special case are Cauchy-sequences which model approximations.
Domains (as I know the term) are more of a set theory idea. Not that that matters.
Algebra also seems to be part of thinking well, however, calculus exposed me to patterns that I hadn’t seen in programming all that much. Many of the Algebra patterns I had already been familiar with from programming.
First couple of hears of IH it was fire. I understand that dynamics change and once you become a marketing channel you are on a different phase. But I wish we could get back there.
100%, this is what I'm feeling as well. I don't want to come across as hating on IH but for me it provided a cool service/community in the early years and it does not provide any of that to me now.
> more resistant to heat considering the distance they have from the engines, in case something went wrong
For the engine to melt a window, something has gone wrong enough that this tolerance isn't material. (You'd need a lot of heat. Plus enough turbulence to blow it laterally inward, but not so much that it's allowed to cool. That combination suggests a loss of power and a low-speed, i.e. low-altitude, stall.)
From the article: "They located the source of the noise as a dislodged window pane aft of the over wing exit."
The engines are under the wing; the affected seals were over it.
If you're melting the window panes in this scenario from the engines, you're having a really, really bad day. Plus, the noise increase from a missing window pant would likely be the smallest of the warning signs.
There are incredibly rare exceptions but almost universally a uncontrolled fire on a aircraft in flight is not a survivable experience. I had a tremendous fear of flying in my younger years. I dealt with it through exposure and becoming a technician in the air force. Fire is the only thing that brings that fear back. Aircraft commonly survive (land) incredibly violent stresses, partial structural failures, widespread system failures, and explosions. They do not survive persistent fires.
So no, if there is a fire, those 3 steps are your options regardless of the aircraft's location or altitude.
To quote George Carlin: "The safety lecture continues… “In the unlikely event of a water landing…” … … well what exactly is… a water landing? Am I mistaken or does this sound somewhat similar to CRASHING INTO THE OCEAN?!!! “…your seat cushion can be used as a floatation device.” Well imagine that: my seat cushion… just what I need… to float around the North Atlantic for several days, clinging to a pillow full of beer farts!"
Interesting reversal: in my younger years I flew all over the planet, I can't even begin to estimate on how many flights I've been. And then, a couple of really bad flights in succession and I actually find it very difficult to contemplate flying again even if I know that statistically it's pretty safe and I'm exaggerating. Rationality only goes so far, apparently if you scare the lizard good a couple of times he remembers.
For me the cure came from the sense of control provided by knowing everything that was going on the plane. All the sounds, sensations, and movements I put a what and why too. That and the literal control I get from being one of the people responsible for keeping that pile of parts in the air. It's some small comfort to think that if I'm ever in an crash, I could've done something about it rather then having died through no fault or inaction of my own.
Also it gives me something to do other then sitting in an airport terminal because the plane is delayed due to maintenance issues.
Yes, I can see how that would give you a better feeling. But I don't have your expertise so for me it feels like I'm giving over control over my life to people who presumably know what they are doing. Which is fine as long as that picture gets reinforced but it breaks when you get evidence to the contrary.
I don't know if this will make you feel better or worse, but it's come rather apparent these days that the person in row 0,regardless of their skill, is pretty much the least reliable part of the system.
Except for the toaster, the bloody toaster is always acting up.
> what exactly is… a water landing? Am I mistaken or does this sound somewhat similar to CRASHING INTO THE OCEAN
What a silly thing to say. First of all not all water is ocean. Second the speeds and forces involved in a landing and in a crashing are very different.
Oh, cool. If I counted that right, there has been 4 unplanned landings by large planes, and a bit more than that of planed landings. But smaller (and slower) planes do that all the time.
The part about smaller planes makes a lot of sense.
I think it's pretty clear the context is commercial air travel here.
"Starvation, suppression, and evacuation" needs neither "emergency landing" nor "don a parachute" to be added to it to be understandable. Both are just prerequisite steps to the "evacuation" mitigation.
Well, in a military context 'evacuation' might be 'pull the eject lever', but in a commercial aircraft the landing bit isn't optional because there are no ejection seats and there isn't a way to exit the plane other than after getting it on the ground (or the water) in one way or another.
That prerequisite step may never be completed, due to the aircraft being destroyed before it can be evacuated.
the engines don't put out a lot of radiant heat, especially at altitude where it is -50 outside. the lights on the other hand are putting out a metric fuck ton of heat directly at the illuminated area.
heat from an engine is directed straight out the back by nature of the turbines.
modern engines are also what are called "high bypass ratio" engines, where the outer ring of the engine (closest to the cladding) is really just air flowing by. the combustion area is smaller, in the center.
With an engine fire, at speed, the vast majority of the heat will be from the flame, in the air, traveling backwards at hundreds of miles per hour. This leaves the radiant heat. At speed, the radiant heat, from a fuel fire, has no hope of overcoming the many hundred mph wind that is scrubbing along the window, cooling it off.
I as thinking how hot it gets sitting on a tarmac in Saudi Arabia or Tucson in the summer. A nice BLACK painted fuselage seems like a really bad idea. Just a thought.
Assuming you're over land, which definitely isn't always the case. You better hope the integral fire suppression system works. If it doesn't you're about to have your day - and possibly much more - ruined solidly.
Any twin engine can fly with one engine out. The over-water part is that it can fly on one engine for a long distance to get back to an airport - which tends to be further away if you're flying over the ocean. Basically having a bit more margin in the design for extended endurance with an engine out.
That generalizes to 'any plane with more than one engine can fly with one engine out'.
> The over-water part is that it can fly on one engine for a long distance to get back to an airport - which tends to be further away if you're flying over the ocean.
That's where certification comes in: not all twin engine planes are ETOPS certified.
> Basically having a bit more margin in the design for extended endurance with an engine out.
Yes, and that translates into much more work than just 'a bit more margin' under the hood, to get that margin you also will need to take this into account during the design phase of the aircraft, crew training, maintenance schedule etc. Incidents under ETOPS conditions are rated more severely than those in other situations.
While I appreciate that modern aircraft are incredibly safe, I don't think many people really appreciate what it means for a flight and aircraft to be ETOPS 240 or ETOPS 330 certified. That means if something happens in the air, you have 4 - 5.5 hours of flying before you reach an acceptable runway. You really are on your own.
Something to think about next time you're over the pacific.
I was thinking this too... What if something caught fire in the aircraft during flight? I assume they land regardless but it goes from "Get the fire extinguisher and put it out" to "DO IT BEFORE THE WINDOWS MELT OFF!"
Absolutely agree. I also had a family account that kept instead not watching anything anymore. In the end I felt like paying for watching propaganda that I could see for free in national television. This came at the perfect time as an excuse.
I don't think there is an agenda, but design by committee has gotten to the point where it does look like there is one. If you are hell bent on checking the same set of was-well-received-before boxes in every piece of schlock you pump out, people reasonably start to believe that checking boxes is the point. From there any checkbox that doesn't align with viewer's world view is perceived as propaganda.
I mean, what are said documentaries about the nazis like? Are they presenting an uncritical viewpoint? I don't think I've ever seen a documentary about the nazis not include the context of all the horrible shit they did
Not OP. They're pushing an agenda is the general criticism. E.g. I'm all for them not excluding minorities. If the show does good, it does good. It's a universal unassailable good/win. But when they want to enforce quotas and promoting DEI content synthetically and unnaturally, then they've crossed a line.
Ruby works great for this, but is unfortuantely not installed on many systems -- but this isn't just bad luck, I think it's a consequence of the fact that ruby code written two years ago has a pretty good chance of not running on the recent version; and code written for the recent version without thinking about backwards compat also has a good chance of not running on ruby of two years ago...
Means as a language it's not suitable for "have it installed on every system and then just throw code at it that will work, and keep working" like Perl. Even if you could convince all the distro maintainers to include it, you'd never have the version you want/need. Which would be different for different scripts, and you'd have to be constantly updating all your routine maintenance scripts you just wanted to put there and have them keep working -- which with Perl you could.
I wish ruby were more about backwards and forwards compat, but it isn't.
Solo founder also here with a product that mixes software and hardware.
For me the big realization was that self-sabotage is mechanism that make up excuses to prevent future damage to your ego. It is activated when you feel uncertain about outcomes and in risky terrain.
Knowing that, the trick is starting stuff you are unsure as an experiment, so you can see how can you get there instead crossing items in a to-do list.
In my case I got to feel really guilty about wasting days and weeks without any advancements. Stuck in complex issues (in my mind) and swimming in circles.
Progress in the only cure, and only reframing your day to day it get easier.
Wow! That is a deep insight. Great way of putting this mental aerobics in words. I would love to talk to you sometime. Please DM me on my twitter handle @himanshuy_
