Sometimes I dream of a flip phone or regressing to using a Treo but the core services like Facetime, etc. are quite handy. I’m thinking when I get much older it’ll be easier. Still got a Palm PDA that runs on AAA’s sitting in a box waiting… but of course the year 2038(?) problem is a thing and there’s a capacitor I’ll have to replace on the board eventually. But syncing things locally sounds neat since I’m back down to one phone and one computer now.
Well it’s definitely not the late capitalistic hellscape we endure and are forced to participate in every day while helplessly careening towards inevitable environmental destruction that’s doing it. Nope! It’s the phones, y’all.
If you ever read any of the thousands of terms and conditions you agree to when you pick up your phone, you would see that choosing how you use it, is most certainly not up to you.
Heroin is just a painkiller. A slotmachine is just a game. Guns don’t kill people. A cigarette is just a plant leaf in a piece of paper.
While all true, there are clear merits to regulate them.
Are smartphones bad? I don’t know. But I wouldn’t reject the idea on the spot. I don’t think it’s the device perse, it’s how we use them. There are assholes among us.
It’s a tool that opens up a lot of dangers (bullying/misinformation/addiction loops created by companies). Oddly, we don’t seem to educate kids on how to handle the tool properly.
Spike is confident its aircraft will not create sonic booms when going supersonic, allowing it to fly at these speeds even over land.
3D renderings are certainly capable of doing any type of magical things. I’ll need a demonstrator before this can be entertained as anything but fantasy.
Seems like the title is a bit deceptive. It mentions multiple airliners from both Boeing and Airbus, that are potentially in need of having engine components replaced, due to defects introduced by GE Aerospace.
FTA: “As per FlightGlobal, the FAA’s proposal is the latest in a series of regulatory actions that have been taken in response to the discovery of iron inclusion in several types of GE Aerospace engines, including the GEnx and CFM International Leap turbofans. The GEnx powers Boeing 787 aircraft, while the Leap powers Boeing 737 Max and Airbus A320neo-family aircraft.”
While I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment, you must also understand that Boeing makes precisely zero engines for its commercial airframes. In the context of this article, the companies you should direct your ire to are GE and CFM International.
Having been an insider in the industry, absolutely yes, GE is a shitshow. The schedules and budgets are too tight and don’t allow for mistakes, and engineers are terrified to come forward when they find issues.
Wow, that’s… alarming. I didn’t know their engineering culture had degraded that much. I’ve got an uncle who’s a Mech E who worked there for years and loved it, but he left well over a decade ago to work in renewables.
Its a problem across the entire aerospace industry, I saw the same thing at P&W too.
I was not at all surprised that the chickens came to roost in the 737 Max crashes. I suspect a lot of the issues come from the FAA allowing companies to cut corners for cost savings.
And even more issues came to a head when the FAA delegated inspections and audits to the companies they were supposed to be inspecting and auditing in the first place. I mean… what the fuck. That’s OBVIOUSLY completely idiotic.
Tell me that you don’t understand the difference between airframes and engines without telling me you don’t understand the difference between airframes and engines
Nah. We’re not being assholes. We’re irritated because you’re clearly done absolutely ZERO digging on the topic, and are just throwing out wildly inaccurate statements, and then expecting everyone to bring the info to you - not, I suspect, that you’ll actually read any of it.
No, but the difference is in the linked article. The commenter in question would have likely been able to understand that the real issue was with GE, not Boeing if they’d read more than the headline.
Yes, really. For civil aircraft, the prevalent nacelle/pod design these days makes it fairly easy to re-engine a plane, and to adapt to new engine technologies as time progressed. This is extremely obvious if you compare images of a 737-100 and a 737-MAX9. This is common practice for both civil and military aircraft.
On a side note: Seriously, are you genuinely so lazy that you can’t throw a couple queries into your search engine of choice and find, like, all the sources that indicate that this is common practice? Or, like, go to a Wikipedia page about a couple civil aircraft and find the section that’s titled “engines”, read a couple paragraphs and see the images, and understand that yes, planes can support multiple engine types from different manufacturers? Maybe I’m overreacting, but this sort of “I’m going to force everyone else to bring facts to me to disprove my wildly inaccurate and baseless assumptions” bullshit is pretty fucking obnoxious.
It was a different user. But the number of people who clearly haven’t read the article or done ANY background research - even briefly - is a bit annoying on topics like this. If you want to participate intelligently in the conversation, do so. If you’re just going to pull things out of your head on topics you have zero knowledge on and zero willingness to increase that knowledge by, you know, looking for sources and reading… lurk moar.
interestingengineering.com
Newest