Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | aaronmdjones's commentslogin

The UK has Dinorwig power station, a pumped hydro station capable of storing over 9 GWh of energy. This alone rivals the entire combined 10.5 GWh of battery storage across the whole country. It certainly seems much more feasible when you have the terrain to allow it.

Some of their customers have even asked them to redesign their cameras so they don't look like Flock cameras.


That they passed their minimums and still weren't set up correctly is shocking, yes. How can you commit to landing instead of going around when you're not configured for landing?

The more egregious thing to me though is ignoring the GPWS callouts on approach because they were chasing the glideslope. If you can't maintain a stable approach, you need to go around, it's the first thing you learn.

You expect this behaviour from a first-timer in the sim, not a commercial cargo pilot.


> You expect this behaviour from a first-timer in the sim, not a commercial cargo pilot.

I'm curious - are commercial pilots reprimanded for doing a go-round after messing up the approach?


No, they're reprimanded for continuing.

https://skybrary.aero/tutorials/stabilised-approach


No. They might have to say why they went around but they can't be punished for it (that's a great way to open yourself up to liability even stripping away all of the human elements). And I can't imagine any reason that an airline would truly care since they don't want their planes crashing so they don't want to discourage pilots from going around if they need to do so. The delay incurred is usually fairly small anyways, maybe 20-30 minutes.

However I will say that the majority of unstable approaches (97%!!) do continue to landing: https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Go-aroun...

...but I think that most of these unstable approaches are likely marginally unstable and only in one dimension. This landing was so far outside the realm of normal it's actually mind boggling that it actually happened. Pilots are trained to immediately go around without questioning it if many of the things that happened on this flight occur (such as not being in landing configuration well before touching down!)


This is true for takeoffs but not for landings. You want to land with a headwind because this means that for the same airspeed you have a lower groundspeed, i.e. when you actually touch down you're going slower on the runway than if you touched down at the same airspeed but with a tailwind.


In other words, it's because of the greater lift.


No. Your calculated landing speed doesn't change depending on the winds, so you'll always be touching down at roughly the same airspeed for the same aircraft type, weight, and flap setting. Touching down with a headwind just means you don't need to use the brakes as hard.

It's beneficial on takeoff because headwind already factors into your airspeed before you even start rolling, which gives you more lift for the same groundspeed yes, enabling you to rotate sooner than you otherwise would.


You're literally repeating what the other guy said with different words.


> (unclear how speed didn't increase)

Large high-bypass turbofan engines take several seconds to spool up from idle (as they would be on landing) to full thrust. The 4 seconds that the thrust levers spent in the full thrust position in this accident was not long enough.


RSA operations are performed modulo n, where n is the product of 2 primes. A 2048-bit RSA key is an n that is 2048 bits long (with the most significant bit set by definition).

There are no consumer CPUs that have 2048-bit-wide registers; even AVX10 tops out at 512 bits. Thus, mathematical operations on RSA keys are performed using arbitrary precision integer libraries like OpenSSL's own BN (BigNum) library, or GMP (the GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library) as used by GNUTLS, in software.

For example, adding 1 to an arbitrary precision integer is not a CPU add or increment instruction, nor is multiplying 2 integers (or an integer and a constant factor) a CPU multiplication instruction.


256-bit ECC on the other hand is frequently performed by 4-wide 64-bit operations with a little extra accounting.


and the more recent (post-quantum) lattice-based stuff can get away with ~16 bit arithmetic (it's vectors of ~512-1024 dimension, but the operations are SIMD-friendly)


Can get all the way down to 4 with a little CRT/RNS if you're trying to go even faster


Honestly BigInts are not a big deal, they're pretty mature at this day and age (and I mean, 20 yrs ago)


Sort of. Rolls Royce voluntarily developed this software modification in response to learning that their reasoning about it never being able to happen was incorrect and being unable to concretely account for how it happened. EASA, which was not even the relevant safety authority for this incident, upon learning of its existence, only then required it to be installed on all A380 Trent 900 engines.


The thing visible on the bus is the interface chip, not the sensor. Most cameras which I've seen hardwire their activity LEDs (it is impossible to grab stills or record video without lighting up the LED) do so by connecting the activity LED to the sensor power rail. With the sensor powered off, the device is still visible on the bus but you get no usable image data.


Yes, but there are free resources available that guide you on how to go through the process without consulting a hallucination machine.

Judges don't like their time being wasted, and they doubly don't like plaintiffs and defendants who don't even go to the effort of trying to follow decorum.

And, I'm just throwing this one out here; contempt of court is one of the vanishingly few civil offenses you can be held in custody for.


And consulting an LLM is a great way to find guides and get basic information on feasibility and effort of bringing a claim. LLMs are not a replacement for critical thinking, and they never have been.


Basic hallucinated information...


Just ask for citations by forcing the LLM to provide a verbatim quote from a linked source. If the LLM is incapable of doing so without hallucinating (cough, Gemini, cough) use a better one.

I don't get the LLM hate on this site sometimes. Just because it is easy to use an LLM irresponsibly doesn't mean all LLM usage has to be irresponsible.


I think the problem is that the original recommendation here was "just use an LLM" not "use an LLM [in this responsible manner]".

As an anecdote: I know people currently preparing to file suit against a former roommate who decided to leave mid lease and stop paying because they had an LLM convince them that they could just do that (they definitely can't, it's not even close under local tenancy laws).

Which fits with my general impression that LLMs are extremely inclined to validate that you can do whatever you want to even when that's not how the law works and my expectation that using them naively for legal matters is a really bad idea.

And applied to this specific case I can easily imagine an LLM picking up on the commenters outrage and supporting them that they're right, when I tend to agree with the actual author's comment that it doesn't seem like they have any actual damages since they fixed it for $20 (not that I'm a lawyer).


    > I don't get the LLM hate on this site sometimes.
I feel the same as you. Internally, I call this "LLM allergy".


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: