Different values of "we" going on here. "We" know how heavier-than-air flight works in the sense that it is known to science. "We" in the comments don't know, because most of us here have at most a Bachelor's in physics, and it takes more than that to really grok aerodynamics, but everyone (including me) can't resist the temptation to show off what partial knowledge they have from that undergrad fluid dynamics class.
The fact that the second "we" doesn't really know aerodynamics, and is going to waste man-days chasing its own half-understandings round in circles in the comments, doesn't contradict that fact that the first "we" does understand aerodynamics. Planes aren't staying in the sky by accident, nor even just by the survivorship of trial-and-error engineering.
I'm not immediately convinced that "effectively changing the shape" is a coherent idea. The lift effect either crucially depends on the actual, unchanging shape of the aerofoil or it doesn't. Flying upside-down proves that it doesn't. Maybe all we're disproving is a straw-man of a "Bernoulli-ist" position, but we're disproving it all right.
EDIT: trying to think what you might mean by "effectively changing the shape". Do you just mean that an upside-down aerofoil is a reflection of the aerofoil the right way up? Because that's the entire point of the argument you seem to be trying to rebut.
If you are asserting that the angle of attack does not affect the lift, you are wrong.
A plane flying upside down is most certainly not using the same angle of attack as it does right side up. The real difference in performance is efficiency, the upside down plane is burning more fuel due to the increased drag from sub-optimal operation (a high angle of attack to overcome the optimization for right-side-up flying).
Note that a right-side-up wing can easily plummet by dropping its angle of attack. That is what it's doing while upside down to generate lift.
> If you are asserting that the angle of attack does not affect the lift, you are wrong.
I am certainly not asserting that, and I'm baffled how you could have formed the impression that I was.
You appeared to be attempting to rebut an argument in favour of the significance of angle of attack. We have another pointless internet misunderstanding on our hands.
It is a lazy gotcha attempt. It is a lazy attempt at gotcha-ing someone who believes angle of attack ISN'T important. Unless you think a plane flying upside-down is somehow evidence AGAINST the importance of angle-of-attack?
Again: this entire pointless misunderstanding has arisen because you didn't see - apparently STILL HAVEN'T SEEN - which side of the debate the comment you replied to is arguing for.
I'm afraid it is most evident that you do not see. Forget trying to guess what I might or might not think about aerodynamics. Just see if you can follow the following recap of the conversation:
1) anvandare says aeroplanes can fly upside down. This is an argument AGAINST a putative person who argues that lift is entirely a function of aerofoil shape, ignoring angle of attack. In advancing this argument, anvandare implies that he DOES understand and contend that angle of attack is significant.
2) You say something unclear about "effective change of shape", apparently attempting to rebut anvandare, who, remember, contends that angle of attack is significant.
3) I say that what you said about "effective change of shape" is unclear, meaning I am rebutting you, meaning I agree with anvandare that angle of attack is significant.
4) You form the impression that I believe angle of attack is not significant, and tell me that if I believe angle of attack is not significant, then I am wrong.
Can you see where you have gone wrong there?
Having written all this, I'm come to the point of actually becoming quite concerned about your neurological state. If you've had a recent head injury or you're old enough that Alzheimers is a possibility, you need medical advice - you've failed to follow the simple thread of a conversation.
Their journalism is usually quite sound, precisely because they take a restrained and level-headed approach to their subjects, rather than rushing to cry wolf about possible worst-case scenarios like people in the vast majority of online forums including, at this point, this one.
The real way to make an impact on the world isn't by shouting as loudly as you can about whatever the issue of the week is. People tune out, and soon you're just shouting into an echo chamber.
There's a point where the evidence is so strong and from such geographically distinct and separated places that it's best to assume it's a global problem. Waiting any longer would be too long and reminds me of this comic: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jp...
We know there's a crisis with plastic in our water and entering our food supplies, even killing our fish and birds. We know CO2 levels are rising. But there's one place where we don't have any data about these two problems: North Korea. Saying we should wait until we get data from North Korea to judge whether or not it's a global problem isn't restraint. It's being intentionally obtuse.
> Saying we should wait until we get data from North Korea to judge whether or not it's a global problem isn't restraint. It's being intentionally obtuse.
That's probably why no-one is saying that. Try to resist the temptation to set up exaggerated caricatures of your opponents' arguments as straw men: this does not lead to anything positive.
Only three continents have been surveyed and the results are massive decline in every single area. These are areas divided by oceans and thousands of miles.
The areas not surveyed are places where it’s quite difficult to carry out such a long term study, like Africa and the Middle East. Waiting for a 40 year study to be completed in central Africa, one of the locations mentioned in the article, is quite the delay, and it may not even be possible to do at the moment. Delaying actions in Germany and Indonesia to wait for this is, very simply, asinine.
No, but there might be reason to doubt the translation on the basis that the intersection of the skillsets "fluent in Russian" and "total command of the relevant computer science material" might not have many people.
For a fair comparison, the translator would have to fully appreciate the relevant connotation of every significant word like "different" in every question, and successfully convey the same in Russian. You couldn't just go to a regular translation service and get a good result.
A lot of computer-related words in Russian are borrowed with small modifications from English (or from where English took them). Nobody says "electronnaya vychislitel'naya mashina" anymore, they say "computer". Same for file, register, class, object, compiler (kompilyator), algorithm... It happens that tutorials for some computer-related subjects - especially some niche ones - are available only in English. It sometimes help that programming languages use English language base for keywords, so there is less confusion with Russian words.
I think it's valuable to ask some questions about the costs and unforseen second-order effects of throwing out all our traditional ideas of respect and status. It's pretty reductive to characterise this as saying people should "do what they're told". I can confidently say that's not an accurate reading of GP's comment.
I didn't downvote you, but I can guess why you might have been downvoted. Your comment is a) off-topic in a thread about automation, and b) presumptuous to the point of arrogance in assuming that your preferred way of aligning the mirrors is the one true safe way.
Many people might reasonably believe that the traditional alignment we were taught, with the look-over-the-shoulder to check the blind spot that we were also traditionally taught, is safe. It comes across as aggressive when you suggest no-one should be allowed a license without converting to your new method.
A lot of trucks are owner operated. They can't afford to not work - even though they know they will be able to potentially make more money.
Owning a truck is a lot of maintenance - insurance, parking costs, etc. A lot of owners also have to pay lease, loans, etc. They can't afford to negotiate for better rates.
Just because there isn't a lot of supply doesn't mean that rates go up!
I can see that small businesses aren't in a great position to negotiate with large businesses. But if there were really a substantial shortage, you wouldn't have to engage in high-risk, high-stakes negotiation to get a better rate. People will offer you a higher rate to secure your service, if your service is _really_ in short supply.
If the people hiring these independent trucks can afford not to pay more, because they know someone else will take the lower rate, then there isn't a shortage. This could just about be the definition of whether or not there is a "shortage".
>What value does it provide? The fact that you know with certainty that someone is single (or at least claims to be)?
You'd also know that they're advertising that they're open to being approached - it might relieve some anxiety knowing that you're going to be rejected simply for approaching someone that isn't interested in being approached at all.
>just put the digital equivalent of "hey ladies I'm single" and wait for the women to swarm? Yeah, ok.
Yes, they've gender-inverted their example in order to be politically correct. You're right that men will still pursue, but I think the app might offer something to men who are less than perfect at detecting which women are signalling they want to be approached. A lot of men would like some de-risking on that front, even at the expense of reducing the total size of the pool.
EDIT: wait, unless it's a thing like bumble where only the woman can make the first move? In that case yeah, I don't see it taking off
Your comment got me thinking about another issue. The "sorry, I have a boyfriend" excuse would no longer be valid as an easy way to let someone down. With that gone, all that's left is the truth.
Also, I had always viewed the ability to deal with sub-optimal outcomes well as a form of character-building. For example, would you rather be the person who has never encountered/taken the risk of approaching someone who is taken, says no to you, or is just not in the mood to be approached that specific night? I'd much rather be able to deal with those situations gracefully. Similarly, I'd much rather learn to observe body language and everything else to determine which women are indicating certain things non-verbally. The general case of that is reading people and it's a critical life skill.
I think a lot of technology, particularly the stuff surrounding dating, does a lot of harm to society, human interaction, and people's character overall. This is just another one to add to the list for me. I can't tell you how many people who are roughly 10-15 years younger than me have zero skills in talking to the opposite sex. And many have, shockingly, never really been in a scenario where they've had to actually turn on the charm, make an effort, and hold a conversation. This manifests itself in the workplace when we have events, meet clients, go out for drinks, etc. They are duds and have zero personality. It's utterly depressing.
The fact that the second "we" doesn't really know aerodynamics, and is going to waste man-days chasing its own half-understandings round in circles in the comments, doesn't contradict that fact that the first "we" does understand aerodynamics. Planes aren't staying in the sky by accident, nor even just by the survivorship of trial-and-error engineering.