IMHO digital entertainment doesn't make up for being stuck in a cramped cabin for up to 19 hours (the longest international flight) around people (with varying levels of considerateness, contagiousness, and personal hygiene). Not to mention the increased risks of DVT and radiation exposure.
I travel each year to see family abroad, a minimum 2-leg trip totaling at least 27 hours. I can't sleep on planes so I arrive exhausted and am useless and cranky for the first 2 days after this trip. I would happily pay 2x the fare to cut that trip in half.
If you can afford supersonic travel, then you could also afford first class. And supersonic travel will probably be like flying economy. The concord was pretty crammed compared to today’s first class.
If you're flying half-way around the world, sleeping on the plane or a shorter flight isn't going to help much. I've done it twice and the jet lag is killer for the first 2-3 days regardless of how well you sleep on the plane (I usually sleep very well).
Under the assumption that it was a suicide, there have been changes that resulted from the similar Germanwings incident. Most airlines adopted a policy of requiring at least 2 people in the cockpit at all times.
Edited to add: There are also discussions underway on how to better handle pilots suffering from depression, since pilots are currently incentivized to never disclose mental health problems for fear of losing their livelihoods. Mentour Pilot talks about this too at the end of his Germanwings video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lotcRYD42e0
I'd pay good money for a dumb 4K OLED TV that does nothing but show whatever is coming in through the HDMI port.
I use a Playstation 5 for everything including Netflix, Apple TV and so on. But every time I turn on the PS5, my TV detects the Playstation and automatically changes the TV's Sound and Video modes to "Gaming", which makes dialog difficult to hear on TV. So I change the setting manually using its horrible remote control, only for it to change back to Gaming the next time I use it.
Isn't the "Gaming" setting doing exactly that (giving you "whatever is coming in through the HDMI port")?
What you describe about it being hard to hear dialog is exactly what I'd expect from someone who has their TV turned down as a result of using the score/soundtrack and loud sound effects as a reference point, which consequently is too low a volume to hear the dialog.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're actually experiencing what your TV's processing turned off is like and sound balancing is actually what you (as in you, personally) _want_ it to be doing.
I used to feel this way, at least about having the TV do zero processing.
Something that recently changed my viewpoint a little bit was that I was noticing that 24-30 fps content was appearing very choppy. I couldn't figure out why it looked like that. It turns out it's because modern OLED TVs can switch frames very cleanly and rapidly, CRTs or older LCDs were not like that, and their relative slowness in switching frames created a smoothing or blending effect.
Now I'm considering turning back on my TVs motion smoothing. I'm just hoping it doesn't do full-blown frame interpolation that makes everything look like a Mexican soap opera.
All you need to fix that is 3:2 pulldown, which all modern TVs should be able to do.
Unfortunately this is another basic feature that tends to be "branded" on TVs. On my Sony Bravia it's split into a combination of features called Cinemotion and Motionflow.
Don't have personal experience with these devices, but a passthrough EDID emulator might solve this. I expect it would make the TV unable to recognize the specific device you have plugged in.
I’m not sure about your TV but it may be a setting you can disable to automatically change the sound.
I agree with you though. We have a Sony Bravia purchased back in 2016 for $900. It has thr Android TV spam/bloat/spyware but it’s not used and never connects to the Internet which has made the TV quite usable over the years. Apple TV is connected, Sonos too, and everything works fine without any crazy settings changes. I’m not looking forward to whenever this thing needs replaced (which will likely be it actually breaking versus being outdated).
I bought a not too expensive TCL qm6k with game master mode. Whenever it detects Xbox series S input, it turns on the mode by default. On menu it stays at 1440p but when I start a game, it switches to 4k 120hz- and the input lag becomes horrible!
Turns out it does not even care if I set lower resolution in Xbox display settings. So I had to just disable game master mode. And I don't miss anything.
Second hand public information monitors is what you want.
I have a nec multisync, which is a banger. Its also designed for 24/7 duty cycle, so its less likley to burn out. It also goes brighter than normal TVs.
However I don't think they do OLED yet. I think you're stuck with LG.
my "smart" tv from 2008 is delightfully dumb. I am not sure if it does anything without being prompted except scan channels when the coaxial is plugged I am pretty sure, it's been almost a decade since I watched cable on this thing.
I see no reason not to believe them. This is the company that invented the seat belt and made the patent free to all other manufacturers. They seem genuinely passionate about reducing road deaths regardless of make.
Volvo is technically capable of making a car that drives 250 kph. That was the top speed of the Volvo 850 T-5R way back in 1995, so its a bold claim to suggest that lowering their top speeds is because they're incapable.
But "250 without issues" is easy to achieve under perfect conditions, but it is far from safe. The driver only has to sneeze at that speed, or hit a puddle of oil or some debris dropped by another car, and it is game over. They're right that safety tech won't save you at those speeds.
Volvo doesn't want anyone dying in their cars, regardless of whether its the driver's fault. Nobody needs to drive that fast and "people who will drive at >180 on the autobahn" is not a common enough use case worldwide to be worth optimizing for.
If you do hit gravel/oil, tracks at least have runoff areas or soft barriers, and no oncoming traffic or cliffs to worry about.
Every track day I've attended required the cars to have been inspected for leaks and loose components. And they were quick to clean up any debris or oil.
Not that tracking cars is the safest hobby, but if someone is gonna drive like that regardless its far safer at a track than on public roads.
I think this understates just how fast modern performance cars have gotten and how unsuitable they are for public roads.
A Ferrari 296GTB sprints from 0-100mph in 4.7s. The 1983 Lamborghini Countach I had a wall poster of as a kid, took 12.1s (and a relatively leisurely 5.4s to get to 60mph). The Ferrari is pulling well over 1G longitudinally during this time, enough to induce tunnel vision in some people and warp your perception of speed and distance.
Compare someone accelerating at full throttle through that tunnel in the Countach versus the 296. The 296 would reach 2-3x the speed the Lambo did by the time they reach the curve where he crashed. Human brains can't process and react to surprises 3x as fast as they could in 1983. Even if they could, at 2x the speed your braking distance increases 4x. No amount of traction control or electronic nannies can make up for this. Nor can the electronics bypass the laws of physics - I think for many they provide a false sense of security.
And while there have been huge improvements in passive safety too, they are tested at speeds like 40mph, not the 90mph+ it is estimated Vince's car was going. This is why Teslas have the highest crash safety ratings there is, while also have the highest rate of fatal accidents.
Not to take away from the tragedy that is Vince's death. I enjoyed many hours playing MoH and CoD as a youth and this is extremely sad news. But as a car enthusiast, I am using this as a sober reminder of how quickly things can go wrong at speed.
My point was more about how the cars perform when turning. Of course you will get in trouble with way too much acceleration.
The main problem with traction control etc is that they are ridiculously capable… until they aren’t. Minor things will cause you to lose it in a 1983 supercar that a modern car will just quietly fix. But nothing will save you if you floor it in the wrong place. Even a Miata without TC can have problems.
(I dailied a McLaren for a while, and at some point turned TC fully off on a track and promptly spun it at maybe 40 mph)
Having owned a few Miatas I can attest that they spin if you're not careful on slippery surfaces. :) TC/DSC is a lifesafer particularly when driving at normal speeds.
Driving my NA (pre-TC) was a pleasure in part because it had so little grip and so little power, that it would let go progressively and at low enough speeds that I could always catch it and not risk a serious crash. Between the squealing of tires and the immense body roll, I always knew how much grip I had left to play with. I now drive a 911, and stability control stays on permanently because I'm not confident I'd always catch it if I accidentally give it too much power (or lift off too quickly) in a turn.
Plenty of wealthy people are bad at delegating. The part that amazed me is him buying the cheap unpronounceable Amazon brands for medical equipment, like "DEDAKJ Oxygen Concentrator 2-9L/min Adjustable Portable Oxygen Machine for Home and Travel Use". I would've thought a billionaire would be surrounded by the best name brands in everything.
He also seemed bad at delegating his interior decorating to a professional, judging by the photos of his island.
If they were to catch and jail just 1% of license-less drivers, in a visible way, it would be a deterrent to the other 99%. But the rate of being caught & punished is negligible (at least in the states I've lived in) so people know they'll get away with it.
I previously lived in a country where the cops set up random roadblocks to check everyone's license & registration and look for signs of intoxication. When there's a real risk of waking up in a jail cell you're less likely to order that third beer. But in the US when renewing my tabs I feel like the joke's on me because half the cars here seem to have expired tabs or illegal plates and nobody ever checks.
> If they were to catch and jail just 1% of license-less drivers, in a visible way, it would be a deterrent to the other 99%. But the rate of being caught & punished is negligible (at least in the states I've lived in) so people know they'll get away with it.
1% is actually negligible, and would not have a deterrent effect. In fact I wouldn't even be surprised if the effective prosecution rate was somewhat higher than this already.
> I previously lived in a country where the cops set up random roadblocks to check everyone's license & registration and look for signs of intoxication.
I live in a country (France) where this is still the case, and where driving crimes are the second source of jail time after drug trafficking, yet alcohol is still the #1 cause of death on the road, and an estimate 2% of people drive without a license after having lost it (and are responsible for ~5% of accidents).
Alcohol will likely always be a factor in the worst accidents. But France is doing something right because your fatal accident rate per capita is one third that of America's [0].
It's not France in particular though, America is the outlier among developed nations. In fact France is a bit behind most other European nations (but not by much).
How much of a deterrent can the police possibly impose that would outweigh the deterrent for not driving illegally, which (in your country) is being starving and homeless?
The cops will never deter everyone from breaking the law, but they don't have to. They just need to deter a large enough % of the population to have a positive effect.
Driving while intoxicated is not a crime of desperation. Even celebrities are often caught for DUI despite being able to afford a full-time limo driver.
Most people who drive intoxicated have jobs and reputations they'd prefer to keep, and families at home they would rather not be separated from or have to explain an arrest to.
And to be clear, we can't solve all the problems with a single measure. I'd like to see not just better law enforcement, but also a social safety net that ensures nobody is ever starving or homeless.
The crime under discussion is not driving while intoxicated but driving without a license.
But if you're going to bring that up anyway, how are people supposed to get their car home from the bar in a place where the government hates public transport?
>But if you're going to bring that up anyway, how are people supposed to get their car home from the bar in a place where the government hates public transport?
An anecdote related to me by a former (Florida) county sheriff's deputy answers that question:
Many police will stake out bars around closing time, awaiting the intoxicated to get behind the wheel so they can be stopped, breathalyzed and arrested.
However, patrons were aware of this and the deputy saw a patron leave, stumbling, drop their car keys several times, then get into their car and drive away.
When stopping said individual, the breathalyzer and field sobriety test showed the driver to be stone cold sober. As such, the deputy sent the driver on their way.
Returning to the bar parking lot, he found that all the other patrons had departed while he was wasting his time on the one sober person -- dubbed the "designated decoy."
I'm sure other variations are and have been in use in the US for a long time -- since most places don't have public transportation or reliable taxis.
The "cars first, public transit last, if at all" culture in most of the US makes the likelihood of DUI/DWI and crashes/injuries/fatalities much, much worse.
> The crime under discussion is not driving while intoxicated but driving without a license.
How did these people lose their license in the first place? The most common reason is DUIs. Followed by multiple instances of reckless driving. People are less likely to lose their license to begin with if they know there will be real consequences.
And there's a large enough population for whom driving without a license is not a crime of desperation. In many places there _is_ a public transport alternative (even if its slow and crappy). I used to give a lift every day to a colleague who had lost his license. I enjoyed the company and he paid for my gas. Many people can make an arrangement like this.
> But if you're going to bring that up anyway, how are people supposed to get their car home from the bar in a place where the government hates public transport?
Having been in this position many times: take an Uber, then Uber back to get your car the next day and plan better (or don't drink) next time.
>How did these people lose their license in the first place? The most common reason is DUIs. Followed by multiple instances of reckless driving. People are less likely to lose their license to begin with if they know there will be real consequences.
When I was in college in Ohio, one of my suite mates had several DUI arrests. After the first, his license was suspended -- yet he was allowed to drive to/from work/school because public transportation was minimal. After the third DUI, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail -- served on the weekends so he could continue going to school without interruption -- and still drive his car to/from work/school.
I was flabbergasted by that. But I guess that's how things are often handled in places without public transportation. And more's the pity.
Am I? The second paragraph is about how to get around legally if you don't have a license. First and third paragraphs are about not making the bad decisions that you get into that situation in the first place (prevention is better than cure). What am I missing?
This thread is about driving without a license, but from the perspective of enforcing the laws to keep unlicensed drivers (who are generally more dangerous) off the roads to make the community safer. The point I'm trying to make is that while yes its unrealistic to expect 100% of unlicensed drivers to stay off the road (for reasons you have outlined), there is a large enough % of unlicensed drivers for whom visible law enforcement would be a deterrent and that would at least be an improvement over today.
Given how many people are getting rich from the inflated stock prices of every AI-adjacent company right now, including the ones with no obvious path to profitability, I could make the argument that they're already in a short term extraction phase.
(I'm also not sure if putting a significant % of the population out of work will create long term value to society.)
As a lowly retail investor, I'm only investing in AI because everyone else is investing in AI. I hope for a greater fool to dump my AI stocks on before the music stops. I am sure plenty of Wall Street sees it the same way.
We're certainly seeing short term value at companies who grew profits by replacing workers with cheap AI tools. But the true cost of those AI tools is still being paid by investors, not customers. (Not to mention the indirect costs being paid by society, from the rising cost of RAM & electricity to global warming.)
In the long term these AI companies will need to raise their prices substantially if they're to break even. Will the value still be there for their customers when its no longer cheap?
And if AI puts enough people permanently out of work, the GDP will drop, leading to demand for any product made with AI dropping too. It is an industry that could eventually eat itself.
> Wall Street believes current $$$$$ capital investments will create massive long-term value
Clearly not. The stock market has a correction at least every few years. So Wall Street only believes they can sell the stock for higher within a few years. Not very long term is it?
If you could predict a stock market correction before it happens, you'd be very, very rich. The fact that corrections sometimes happen does not negate the existence of market-wide expectations for any given stock.
> If you could predict a stock market correction before it happens, you'd be very, very rich.
Same goes for if you can predict the price of a stock... but analysts do it anyway and set targets for stocks.
> The fact that corrections sometimes happen does not negate the existence of market-wide expectations for any given stock.
The crash or not is part of the expectation. Regardless of what you read on articles, those fund managers often sit out situations they don't deem worthy of investing.
If they deviate from their flight plan, don't they have to at least inform ATC to basically update the flight plan? I vaguely recall this from my PPL training about 20 years ago (I haven't been current for a long time) but I also never had to fly over international waters where I'd imagine you can't radio anyone so I don't know that that works.
> If they deviate from their flight plan, don't they have to at least inform ATC to basically update the flight plan
When on an IFR flight plan - at least domestically, especially in busy airspaces, the flight plan is mainly sort of a backup in case of lost-comms. You are typically vectored by ATC and your route may or may not be exactly what you filed. For example, in the SoCal area, the "standard" IFR routes can be pretty roundabout going around the approach/departure corridors of the main airports. But, if at any time the area is clear, ATC would typically clear you through a shorter routing.
I am not sure how it works for international routes. I know that for trans-oceanic routing, they typically make position reports over HF radio when over the ocean where there is no ADSB coverage.
I travel each year to see family abroad, a minimum 2-leg trip totaling at least 27 hours. I can't sleep on planes so I arrive exhausted and am useless and cranky for the first 2 days after this trip. I would happily pay 2x the fare to cut that trip in half.
reply