A good example of how fragile technology really is.
First off, you need rare metals to make chips, so you need access to them. Then you need complex chip frabrication technology that a single company[1] in The Netherlands creates and owns. Then you need to build these incredible sterile and complex factories of which there are only a hand full across the global.
Or having built up a relationship to a country that can get you the chips that you can't manufacture yourself, either that country has a change of political system or a third country threatens you with sanctions if you continue to have dealings with that country.
It all seems to be built on shifting sources of silicon.
As a person, not a Veteran, I totally agree. This data should not be public domain. Definitely only accessible to family members (if at all).
Having obtained my father’s military records, I can definitely say that I’m glad these weren’t online, searchable. Via those records I learnt much concerning my father and I’m glad I obtained them.
To get those records, I had to prove I was his son, that my father was indeed deceased and that he hadn’t said/written anything to prevent me from having his records. That should be the minimum (IMHO) for obtaining such records. This wasn’t in the USA though.
The military uses the gun of the taxman to force us to pay for them. If they're going to put me in a tiny cage for not paying up while they're galavanting around the world drone striking brown people and us citizens the least I can get out of it is the records.
This dump will give you the personal records of the rank and file. The “military” that you’re talking about is really congress and the president. It makes much more sense to go after the actions and communication of those folks than some grunts who gave their bodies shoveling shit for a chance at a future.
Visiting SF a few years back (pre covid), I was surprised to see how many cars had no license plates at all.
The owners weren’t particular about keeping a low profile or not being noticed. As an outsider, it seemed to me perfectly legal to have no plates.
Turns out, having asked around, it’s all those people going over the golden gate bridge and not wanting to pay the toll and instead rather taking the risk of being caught without plates - obviously cheaper than paying the daily toll.
Is this in anyway related to cracking down on this practice?
Once it becomes measurable, then you can implant emotions into AI agents. Once you an AI identity that is emotionally indistinguishable from us non-AI identities and which is infinitely smarter than us, what purpose would we have left to fulfil?
My purpose would remain unchanged. What you’re asking is almost the same as asking, “If a person exists who is better (smarter, stronger, more attractive) than you, what point is there in existing?” Because I experience life subjectively and would prefer to continue doing that.
You make a good point - purpose is very subjective and personal. Maintaining that purpose regardless of outside influence becomes the hard bit!
OTOH what happens if there is a whole species of beings who are smarter, stronger, … than our species? Would our collective purpose become to accept them as our betterment? Our personal purpose would vary greatly from fear to wonderment.
> bad idea to have a concrete wall at the end of the runway
but was it the end of the runway? As I understand, the pilot came in from the opposite direction, i.e.
> The pilot then aborted the original landing and requested permission to land from the opposite direction.[1]
So that wall was located at the beginning of the runway if the runway was used correctly.
From the bottom image[2], it would appear the wall is located behind the point where planes begin their take-off (and I assume their landing) - but I'm no aviation expert.
That's not correct. A runway can be used in either direction, if you look on Google maps you can see the runway at Jeju has markings at both ends including a number (denoting it's compass heading) - both ends are usable.
You always want to land with a headwind and never a tailwind, so ATC will use whichever end is favorable for the current conditions.
In this case, if they attempted to land with a tailwind then the on-heading vector component of wind velocity must be added to the airspeed to get the ground speed... whilst this was a contributing factor to the accident, it's not something to focus on.
There will be a thorough investigation but it will take some time to get answers.
I read that the opposite direction had a NOTAM exclusion, i.e. was excluded from use. From the professional pilot forum linked a few days ago in a similar thread.
If that's right then OP would be correct in saying, this direction wasn't meant to be used.
Depends on why it was NOTAM’d - could be that the localizer was out, that there was a noise abatement, or other reasons.
Part of preflight is investigating those so you know what are options at what are not - entirely closed runways will be indicated if they’re actually broken up or just marked closed.
Ok but in an emergency all bets are off, the opposite direction is better than a crash landing. So you can't just assume 100% of landings are in one direction.
Idk about this particular airport but it is nearly universal that runways are used from both ends. The idea is to land into the wind.
We don’t know why the pilot elected to double back instead of go around. There may have been indications of a progressive failure that indicated that course of action, but it does seem hasty. That haste may have caused them to not be able to set up a stabilized, minimum speed approach, and may have contributed to the long touchdown, which certainly was a contributing factor.
Still, a 14 ft high concrete structure within 300M of a runway end is unusual, and does not fit the standard for frangable structures which is the guidance for runway aligned equipment.
Even if the runway was only used from one direction (not true), it would be dumb to build a big concrete structure near its beginning. It's not unheard of for planes to come in too low and touch down before start of the runway due to pilot error (or even double engine failure on rare occasions).
Was the runway designed to only be used one way or was this just the it opposite direction of how it was being used at that moment? I understand that at least some airports change the direction based on wind.
This depends strongly on the airport, terrain, and variability of winds.
There are airports in which approaches always or very nearly always follow the same profiles given local conditions. SFO, SJC, and SAN would be three examples off the top of my head.
SFO's major approaches are over the bay, opposite approaches would involve rapid descents dictated by mountains near the airport.
SJO and SAN are both limited by proximate downtowns with tall towers. Nominal approach glide paths cut below the rooflines of several structures, and make for some interesting experiences for arriving travellers.
FYI, the 01 and 19 names are short for 10 and 190 degrees -- so it's always going to be the case that the opposite runway direction is 18 mod 36 from the other direction.
> 1.3 Pilot shall use extreme caution during carrying out final approach into RWY 01 or missed approach or departure for RWY 19 due to obstacle located east of extended RWY at approximately 2.1 NM from threshold of RWY 01.
Almost anything that is 500m causes an obstacle notice to exist. There are tons of them and most mean nothing unless you’re flying an overweight small plane in the dark desert heat.
> So the wall is actually at the beginning of the runway. That wall was never never meant to be at the end of a landing but at the start of landing.
Airports like this are designed to have two approach directions -- in this case, 10 and 190 degrees. Either approach direction would have been acceptable depending on the prevailing wind.
First off, you need rare metals to make chips, so you need access to them. Then you need complex chip frabrication technology that a single company[1] in The Netherlands creates and owns. Then you need to build these incredible sterile and complex factories of which there are only a hand full across the global.
Or having built up a relationship to a country that can get you the chips that you can't manufacture yourself, either that country has a change of political system or a third country threatens you with sanctions if you continue to have dealings with that country.
It all seems to be built on shifting sources of silicon.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/24/asml-the-biggest-company-in-...
reply