Comments by "HalfSourLizard" (@halfsourlizard9319) on "Mentour Now!" channel.

  1. I've totally seen that on smaller prop planes -- both weighing people and asking people to move to rebalance.
    82
  2.  @kazansky22  Funny how laws of physics seem to stay the same, eh?
    49
  3.  @theregnarute  Or IBM ... pretty much been decades since they turned out anything that could genuinely be called 'innovative'.
    10
  4.  @kenbrown2808  That's funny; wondering if you're a generation-ish older than I am? 'Was this designed by Microsoft?' is my standard goto for this.
    10
  5. Process is about balance. Leave the engineers / researchers 100% in charge, and they'll bankrupt the company -- sadly, somebody actually has to sell product in order to keep funding the R&D ... Leave it to accountants / professional managers, and they'll kneecap R&D to pad their bonuses -- might serve short-term interests, but massively increases long-term risk.
    8
  6. Old timey people said the same thing about lift/elevator operators ... The feeling of safety is an illusion that's fairly malleable, especially with generational changes in how humans interact with/trust technologies.
    6
  7.  @kenbrown2808  Ah, didn't mean that in an ageist way ... Just ... successful companies always seem to turn this way in their terminal phase ... Apple, e.g., hasn't done anything other than incremental improvements recently (with the possibly exception of those goofy VR glasses).
    4
  8. Making security checkpoints even slower seems like the worst idea imaginable.
    3
  9. Protip: If you upgrade the 757 to a new iteration, 'MAX' might not be the best branding choice.
    3
  10. Snapped some photos of an E4-B flying past my house the other day ... odd-looking plane with a hump on its hump.
    2
  11. Passengers do not have any individual incentive to follow these rules. Nobody believes that their devices will be the ones that cause a fire. Everybody wants their toys. And, there are, effectively, no consequences for violating the rules.
    2
  12. Love how the channel is moving onto BIGGER topics ... really fun to see your growth in perspective over time ... and growing with you as avgeeks :}
    2
  13.  @cfromnowhere  And there are still a few people who build wristwatches woth hand-made gears ... And a few people who ride horses ... And weird authors who insist on using ancient word processors or typewriters ... And courtroom sketch artists ... There are always some lingering bits of the old tech; things don't get fully replaced when the world advances ... But these are extremely niche cases.
    2
  14.  @ayushgarg8396  The better question is: Why would humans be needed at all?
    2
  15. That just means you need to spend more time in non-English-speaking countries where you can get desensitised to hearing English butchered in assorted ways. Sounds like a 'you problem'.
    2
  16. People don't own F-1 cars because people, on average, suck at driving and would crash constantly ... Professional pilots' not flying supersonic jets is for utterly unrelated reasons.
    2
  17.  @MentourNow  Fairly popular ... especially at airports!?
    2
  18. Obviously, you're not a scuba diver.
    2
  19.  @i.m.gurney  The classic diver joke is that there are 2 kinds of divers: Those who have peed their wetsuits ... and liars.
    2
  20. Hot take: One of these decades, there will be some actual evidence-based science behind management ... instead of meathead bros would couldn't handle studying a real discipline so daddy bought 'em an MBA and now they ceaselessly talk about MBO or KPI or OKR (depending on which decade they went to business school).
    2
  21. As the shitty low-cost airlines show, most humans choose price and price.
    1
  22. Your weight isn't terribly private -- it's really quite obvious to everyone if you're a fatty.
    1
  23. That doesn't tell you anything about how it's distributed.
    1
  24. Airlines should charge you more to fly ... in the same way that FedEx does if you ship a heavy package ... it costs more to move your fat ass and the rest of us shouldn't subsidise that.
    1
  25.  @globalvoice...  Obviously. But, if you want to have more space / weight occupied, you pay for it -- this is bleedingly obvious with air freight (precisely because it's a major cost factor); no reason that it should be different with passengers. And, it's already done to some extent: If you want to have more space (e.g., a 1st-class seat) allocated to you, you pay more. Doesn't seem like rocket science that weight is also a highly-relevant factor.
    1
  26.  @carcharhinus_555  I never stand anywhere ... just walk through the scanner + done.
    1
  27.  @markuskuhn9375  lol, plane crashed because Big American Bob ate 100kg of doughnuts after weigh-in
    1
  28. If we all just walked, there'd be no need for fuel at all.
    1
  29. It's basically impossible to make vids about av-hist without talkin' about ol' Kelly Johnson ... But, somehow, I'd no idea that his parents were from Malmö! (Good thing we've got a Swede making vids, eh!?)
    1
  30.  @mahatmarandy5977  Hrmmm, I assumed it was because train drivers (conductors? whatever they're called) are cheaper (compared to pilots) -- and I believe there's only one of them? In the medium term, I suspect we agree -- it's much, much more probably: 1 human as PIC + an AI 'helper'; eventually the AI becomes the PIC (in practice if not in name) and the human watches Netflix and monitors for faults/takes over in emergencies ... More uncertainty beyond that.
    1
  31.  @ayushgarg6069  Enjoy your life always seems like a rather good suggestion.
    1
  32. 5:19 Nice!
    1
  33. I mean, it'd presumably be cheaper to have a fully automated plane with some airline 'hostages' on-board to make you 'feel safe' ... Unclear why you think that actually changes safety numbers, though.
    1
  34.  @killer.crayon  1) Risk of lawsuit and increased insurance premiums ought to suffice to align incentives. 2) Neural networks, as I'm sure you know, aren't subject to the need to cover corner cases in algorithms... and they'll have vastly more training data than the meatpilot.
    1
  35. I'm incredibly surprised that fully-automated cargo flights (probably with a backup meatpilot onboard) aren't already happening. Good luck convincing the passengers (who seem largely immune to evidence) that AI is a safer pilot in the short- to medium-term, but cargo don't care ...
    1
  36.  @marcellkovacs5452  Like, literally 😉
    1
  37. Not sure what point you're trying to make ... but Airbus / Boeing's jets have autoland, as well.
    1
  38. Why shouldn't heavier people be charged more? It costs more to ship a heavier package for a reason ...
    1
  39. That was 15 years ago in a plane whose design dates to the late 1970s.
    1
  40. Airlines enjoy making money. They put people in the seats that they pay for. If you want a bigger seat, pay for it.
    1
  41. ​ @cabanford  The point is: You get the value that you pay for ... and should expect nothing else.
    1
  42. The point isn't whether some particular corner case could/could not be replicated by AI, the point is, on net, which is safer?
    1
  43. Why the heck would you try to use a GPT system to fly a plane? That doesn't seem remotely applicable to this problem.
    1
  44. I can't imagine how tedious having to talk to some rando locked in the cockpit with you for the entire flight would be.
    1
  45. You may have misunderstood supply and demand when ...
    1
  46. How would weighing them together help? The bags aren't stored in the same location as the passengers ... so knowing only the aggregate weight provides zero useful information to keep the plane balanced.
    1
  47.  @richardsmith579 Yes, and so does distribution of that weight.
    1
  48. It's amazing -- given that they designed the ability to encrypt it -- that the signal is not signed, which would trivially allow detection of fraudulent / spoofed broadcasts.
    1