Showing people that they can avoid ads by switching from chromium might make more people use adblockers.
I get flabbergasted whenever I talk to someone and realize they’re unaware that such things exist. I hope all (according to the google store entry for ublock origin) 10,000,000 of the ublock origin users switches from chromium based browsers to, say, firefox…
I know a lot of Chrome users, and the general story I get from them is nearly always the same infuriating bullshit along these lines:
“So, I tried the like, Fox Fire thingy, but this one time, like, it took, like, 1.5 seconds to load, so it’s “””“”“”““slow””“”“”“”" so I just use Chrome 'cause it’s, like, faster and stuff."
Yeah, and I suppose the 427 useless things you have running in your system tray right now don’t have anything to do with your computer being “slow,” right?
There is also the initial load problem where it would take longer to load in Firefox compared to chrome. Yet people will attribute it to the browser and not the fact that assets were already stored in chrome.
Or worse, “Why should I switch to Firefox? Everybody’s complaining about the performance of Firefox compared to Chrome, but Chrome just works for me.”
Blissfully unaware of the kind of power you’re giving Google over the Internet by using their browser. I once had an experience where someone tried to use this to push me back to using Chrome.
That’s why Google is trying to launch the “Web Integrity API” that will essentially allow them to mandate any website accessible to or using Google Services to ban browsers that have ad blockers.
On a similar note Deutsche Bank literally funded the Nazis and to this day is still doing shady shit like the numerous money laundering scandals and also being involved in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal. For each of those, including funding the Nazis, they merely got a slap on the wrist as they’re literally still allowed to exist as one of the top 10 biggest banks of Europe.
Yes, but for justice they would have had to arrest half of Germany and find prison guards that do not sympathise with the prisoners, so 99% foreigners. It was just impossible without Germany collapsing. And they probably wanted to avoid another treaty of Versailles.
How do you measure that, there’s no crime in Germany that’s in anyway related to the horrors of WW2 (I’m assuming). Most remnants feel guilty or ousted by society if they mention being part of war crimes. Very few would have found support in different parts of the world encouraging supremacy or something shady.
The purpose of punishments and prison system if to avoid repeat behavior which mostly happened anyways. So does still punishing them have any real value except for feelings of revenge?
Well, if you don’t even try to punish wrong behaviour it’s a bit like agreeing with it. Hey son, you did nothing wrong in killing the neighbors. Keep it up, Kyle.
Honestly, after WW2 and the horrors of it and the Holocaust, I’m mildly surprised that Germany wasn’t intentionally “collapsed” in a permanent way. Not just its division into zones but permanently dissolved as a geopolitical entity, with the allies flooding their respective zones with people to settle, work, and live in the region, and encouraging the German people to travel to their countries to dilute/absorb/assimilate the people and culture to the point that the actual land effectively became something between a territory and a colony of each ally (or even an outright annexation), with no moves toward creation of East and West Germany, nor any consideration of reunification.
I guess time has a way of healing wounds, but given the impact of the war and the acts of the nazi regime, I would have expected the allies, post-war to do everything in their power to prevent a German state from ever existing again.
Admittedly, I’m not as familiar with that time period as I am with the war itself, and such ideas are always easier said than done…but that’s always seemed like a more realistic course of events, to me, than what actually happened.
That is what happened at the of WW1 which created conditions that were a straight line into WW2.
The reality it is far better to support a people back into democratic, peaceful self-governed society vs perpetuate the damage and trauma of a bestial dictatorship.
some of them also became Austrian (or stayed in Austria) and went into politics after a very short while… (which is the origin story of the Austrian populist right-wing party “FPÖ” - their first leader was the former Nazi Minister of Agriculture and an SS officer) No need to hide your nazism if you’re in Austria (even today)
if IBM had such different values they could be paying reparations to the communities they helped tried to murder out of existence. even acknowledging the company’s role in the holocaust would be a start - instead as of 2021 they’re still in full denial mode
My advice is to live your life as best as you can without worrying too much about things you can’t control. Try and build a life around yourself that’ll help you be happy through it all, regardless of what happens. Enjoy your 20’s. 30’s are good too and 40’s don’t suck either.
To paraphrase Sun Tzu: do not choose a path to victory. Instead, choose a strategy such that all paths lead to victory.
Have kids if you want. It’s just insane to me to plan your entire life and make major decisions on a cataclysm that may or may not even occur in your lifetime; and it (climate change) may present in ways that we can’t even imagine now.
Edit, fine, fuck me, it’s raining fire and brimstone out there, billions of people are dying in the streets, the horsemen of the apocalypse are here, it’s game over for the human species, my bad. Nobody have kids, it’s over, might as well just shoot yourself right now.
Seriously. This isn’t the bible where people prophitized the world will end in 130ad. We are in it now. This is happening, and educated people have been warning everyone about it.
Damn dude didn’t take long to throw out the “KYS” card, huh? Spoken like a goddamn bot. This is why we refer to you people as NPCs because everything you say is so goddamn predictable. You do not even have an ounce of original thought in you
Next is go touch grass… no wait you did that already, so why don’t you skip to the calling me a LibCuck and fuck off already, hmm?
Um… It’s literally happening right now. They told our grandparents “it’ll be your grandchildren who will really suffer”
We’re the grandchildren. Food and water shortages, people dying from the heat, floods, pandemics. All of it is happening in first world countries. The US, Europe, China… Last year, this year, next year
We’re past the “slowly gets worse” phase. We fucked around for that. We’re starting the “find out” phase
This is such a depressing and pessimistic view on it though.
Imagine a world where the top humans actually cared and didn’t exist to just exploit the classes under them. That would be a good place to be, but humanity’s greed will never cease to exist.
I don’t care if we go extinct. Once I’m dead reality shuts down since I can only experience it from my POV.
And it’s cute you think we’re gonna allowed to retire instead of dying at work or homeless. Real cute. We won’t have the same luxuries as the damn boomers.
its better to enjoy what you have right now than be worried about the future which is not in your control. i don’t see how being worried will prevent climate change. might as well not give a fuck and live your remaining life doing whatever makes you happy.
You are selling apathy and do-nothing. An utterly abhorrent and amoral position. It’s no wonder the entire of gen z want to kill themselves when people like you are telling them not to worry and just sit around waiting for the end to come.
I am selling the opposite. Join radical political organisations that seek radical change. Take part in building the radical power and actually doing something about it.
No you aren’t selling hope either. Your comment was about 6 billion out of 7 billion people dying. You didn’t ask to do activism or anything… and joining “radical politicial organisations” will get you branded as a terrorist. There is a need for activism but under a capitalist system only profits will matter. There is very little under our control and only enforcing policies at govt. level will help.
I’m not asking people to sit around waiting for end to come. I’m asking them to do things which make them happy whether it’s playing video games or climate activism. Worrying about shit won’t fix climate change, strategical political and economical changes might.
It was like that to illustrate to you the scale of the problem and the scale of immorality hidden within the “just do whatever you want and be happy”.
Get organised. Join radical orgs. Get unionised. How many of you have even bothered to join a union yet? Like the bare fucking minimum. Of the people in this thread I bet it’s a handful. Join an org, go to a 1 hour fucking meeting once a fortnight. It’s not hard, everyone is just lazy as fuck and sitting around waiting for someone else to do it for them.
Absolutely NOBODY will do it for you. The working class must rescue itself. People need to get this through their fucking heads, the system has failed and is not going to reverse course. A new system is needed and only radical efforts are calling for that.
I totally agree with you. I just wanted to put into perspective that being sad and worrying is only detrimental to our own well being. To fight the fight, we need to be resilient. Being in a happy and positive state will help with what you’re suggesting. forcing corporations and taxing their ill-gotten profits is the most basic step we need to do. However, joining unions is hard especially in a poor country like mine. You’ll be kicked out of your company so fast and there are more than a thousand people waiting to take up your job. I’m not exaggerating. Labour laws have been fucked with so hard by the corporations that day to day survival is what most people can think about. Sadly, climate change is the least of the worries especially in poorer countries.
Mate at some point or another you do need to chastise people for claiming they want change, even posting on the internet about all the change they want to see, “remvolutionnnnn!” they shout, and then they do absolutely fucking nothing about it.
Every now and then a kick up the arse helps. I’m not “trying to reach out” to most of these people, I already know that they’re ideologically where they need to be, they already believe that capitalism will not save the planet, they already believe that every day is a step closer to mass famines and societal collapse, they trust the scientists. They want change. What they’re not doing is getting off their arse and going to people that actually want to do something about it. They inactive, they’re hoping something magical will happen with the existing capitalist political ruling class who have brought us to this cliff edge and that they’ll magically stop us marching right off it. They don’t even believe that they will stop the march off the cliff but something deep deep deep down is still making them hope and pray for the yesterday when they could just stay at home and be politically inactive, where politics was a thing that happened on the news and didn’t impact them too much.
Well that shit has changed and they need a boot up the arse to realise that. I don’t need to reach out to them because they already fucking agree. All we need is for all of them to get off their arse and actually do something.
So yeah I’m fine with how I’ve framed it. If you think I’m “reaching out” to you you’re probably still calling yourself a liberal, you’re not the target.
The “kick up the arse” doesn’t work. You’re just going to make people get defensive. You being rude gives them an excuse to not listen to you - now they can strike you off as a madman radical and move on with their lives.
This person was just advising to not get overwhelmed with anxiety and panic for the future because it’s just going to make the present suck before that future is even here. They never said “don’t take any action at all” or “it’ll all magically be okay”. Going to that person to try and overwhelm them with anxiety and panic for the future and calling them names for not being overwhelmed with anxiety and panic for the future isn’t any kind of rhetorical “tough love” thing you’re trying for it to be - it’s just a dick move.
Trying to overload people with fear doesn’t work. It’s actually a denialist tactic, when your brain is so overloaded with fear it can’t function with it, everything turns into a blurry mess as a self defense mechanism. You stop thinking about it, that’s what most conscious people have done. Very, very few people have genuine faith and trust in today’s political authorities. But regardless, in that state it’s very easy to fall for a counter narrative just to be more calm with your life.
Also, I’m not a liberal. Not every country has an organized and effective radical left. In here the most radical leftist parties are leninists who only sit on their asses writing articles on websites that look from the 90s about how we should support ISIS in their anti-imperialist struggle and how everyone but them is a liberal. I focus on improving and sustaining my own community.
Completely disagree. Have seen it work plenty of times and will absolutely continue doing it. Shame is a powerful motivator and you’re simply wrong.
In here the most radical leftist parties are leninists so all they do is sit on their asses writing articles on websites that look from the 90s about how we should support ISIS in their anti-imperialist struggle. I focus on improving and sustaining my own community.
This is bollocks mate and just tells me you literally do not participate by highlighting that you have absolutely no clue what anyone is doing. You’re mad at me for chastising you because you feel that it applies to you.
Go and join an org and stop making excuses. Start with a union.
I’m not telling you what to do. I’m telling you it’s a shitty thing to do and it doesn’t work. It didn’t work in this thread, and if you’ve found instances of it “working”, I’m 90% sure people just followed along with you so you stopped nagging them. Shaming someone doesn’t convince them, at most it may convince third observers.
This is bollocks mate and just tells me you literally do not participate by highlighting that you have absolutely no clue what anyone is doing. You’re mad at me for chastising you because you feel that it applies to you.
You can ascribe any feelings you want to me, the truth is the same. Most leninists in here don’t do anything, they just whine on blogposts about stupid bullshit. As a matter of fact I do have a clue, because I keep the article as a great reminder: pmli.it/…/20151015_scuderiletussupporttheislamics…
Instead of being part of them, as I previously said, I focus on improving and sustaining my own community. In that I’ve done way more for the proletariat of my country than any smug authoritarian cuck has done in years.
I hope you realize my initial point now. Direct confrontation doesn’t work. The other person will get defensive, probably immediately, and try to look for any possible reason to not listen to you, even if it has nothing to do with what you’re trying to argue. I wonder what you’ll say to deny it next, given that you’ve gone through that exact process right now in this very conversation.
I’m confident from your other comments that I don’t like the specifics of radical political organizations you mean, but the general message is correct, apathy destroys people and societies.
So you’re ignoring 85% of the capitalist world then. Cool.
I can make socialism look fucking awesome if I ignore the 85% of it that performs the worst too.
And that’s completely ignoring the fact that every single bit of standard of living you get in the western empire comes off the backs of exploitation of the global south.
Naming germany is fun, eastern germany used to be socialist and wants to go back to socialism, while Berlin’s population voted to expropriate all property from all major landlords via a referendum, seizing 1.5million homes owned by the parasites. And what’s happening over in Salzburg city proper where 20% voting for the communist party might spook you, 1 in 5 reds under the bed! Ooger booger!
“Global food chains” have lots of strategic depth. When you see a crisis somewhere affecting those and causing famine, that’s usually for the regulation time, not until the crisis itself is resolved, and scaled accordingly, not on the scale of the crisis itself.
Most of the agriculture on our planet works inefficiently. Such an event, if we accept your scale, would just ultimately destroy the producers who do that in favor of those with modern effective means like intensive gardens etc, like many in Israel or Netherlands.
Now, this surely is going to give power to people we maybe don’t want to have it. But this doesn’t mean 6 bln people dying.
EDIT: Forgot to say - climate change is not something which would happen in an instant, so it’s going to be regulated more efficiently than, say, crises caused by wars and revolutions.
You are completely out of touch with what is actually being said by the people screaming that we are on the way off the cliff. They are warning that shit is happening much faster than originally predicted, and they were already originally predicting that the food supply collapse would happen by 2040 years ago. This is happening sooner than you realise. Oh and guess what?
Food collapse isn’t something that happens slowly either mate. Everything in our system is interlinked, when part of the chain breaks we will get complete global chaos. Worse though, when things get real bad there will be no more ability for anyone to cooperate internationally. Once chaos begins it will be impossible to both bring down carbon and maintain order with nations of people rioting and dying from famine.
There is an extreme sense of urgency that some of you are just absolutely not getting at all about this.
I’m not the one fucking saying it. If you ever bothered to read you’d know that it’s the research scientists and professors at the the university of Exeter in one of those links, or the research scientists and professors at the Columbia University in another, or the research scientists at the Anglia Ruskin University in another.
You are literally just a denier. Did you deny covid was serious too? Post some anti mask and anti lockdown shit?
How’s your underground bunker going? If you aren’t currently either living in one or building one you should probably stop talking shit about billions dying.
Underground bunkers are a prepper fantasy held by people with masculinity issues. They’re completely useless without supply chains and communities to support them.
What gets people through hardtimes isn’t individualist isolationism. It is collective support, community building and cooperation. The pooling together of labour within groups in order to perform tasks more efficiently overall for the collective benefit.
My understanding is that communities require children to continue existing. People in this thread are saying they don’t want children because climate change. My position is that that opinion is really stupid, and what you just said about communities would suggest you feel the same.
I don’t think there is any particular problem with people having fewer children. It creates a short-term labour burden in terms of having to divert more resources to elderly care but the rate of birth change isn’t likely to change too dramatically to affect much. You just reduce the population over time and that’s fine. Fewer people isn’t a problem as long as the labour exists to support the food, clothing and shelter output you require for the combination of capable + incapable that your community has. Starvation in the short term is the larger concern.
The gif is kinda misleading. The volume of the chocolate shrinks when you do this trick. You can actually notice some is missing. Mostly because it’s cut in a weird way
Some of the pieces are growing, but it’s cut at an angle so the growing is spread over a large area, and the growing happens as pieces are moving around, making it hard to notice.
(Specifically it’s the pieces 2 and 3 wide with an angled cut on the bottom that grow).
People aren’t honest enough with each other and their own needs. Meanwhile we build other dependencies in long term relationships that have nothing to do with physical attraction, but are in most cases more important for all kinds of reasons.
Monogamy is the basis of a lot of unnecessary suffering because it’s resisting a very real need we continue to have even when our relationships become romantically stagnant. If we could all just be honest about it with our SOs without fear, and work together as we do anyway to maintain other commitments to each other, we could have a culture where there’s a lot more freedom to seek more intimacy and love in a way that isn’t dishonest, that isn’t “cheating”.
I’ve never understood the concept of cheating in general. Basically what a person says is that they don’t want their significant other to experience any kind of intimacy or sexual relationships with any other person except for them for the rest of their lives.
I’ve always seen that as kinda unfair.
On the other hand if I’m in a relationship I typically don’t feel the need or desire to have relations with any other person even when the opportunity presents itself.
I have a friend though that is hopelessly in love with his girlfriend but regularly engages in sexual relations with other women. For him, it’s not an emotional activity, it’s just a physical one.
But you’re absolutely right open honest communication is absolutely key.
What makes cheating, cheating, is the betrayal of trust involved more than any specific acts of intimacy. The reality is in monogamous relationships merely falling for someone else, even without then knowing how you feel, already feels like a betrayal in your heart as a loyal partner who wishes you only had eyes for your SO and nobody else. Even porn in some cases is a betrayal. It’s a whole lot of unnecessary suffering not to acknowledge how the overwhelming majority of us won’t mentally thrive under these conditions. Therefore, setting expectations appropriate for your situation is key.
For my part, my SO understands that due in part to her relatively low sex drive and complete lack of initiative, certain needs of mine aren’t being met, and we’ve talked about it. I still love her deeply, and we have recently had a child, and I have every intention of meeting my obligations as a father and partner for the rest of my life. But, there’s a real possibility I could fall for someone else one day. I already have friends who I can say I love and would jump at the opportunity to be intimidate with should they show that kid of interest. What interests me though, are loving bonds, not hookups (I mean STD risks and all sorts. Ew). I want to be close with those who I sleep with, and i want them to know I love my partner and will always be there for her and our child. But, there’s space for them too, if they want in. Ideally, my partner likes and accepts them too - and the more close they are as friends (or even lovers too) the better.
In any case, that’s the dream I guess. Nothing has happened yet, and I find with a baby to look after, I’m in no rush, and certainly even with everything out in the open, it’s still too much drama to navigate at the moment. But if it does happen one day, at least it won’t result in a litany of lies that lead to guilt and suffering all around. At least, that’s the idea. I know it will never be quite that easy in reality, but it wouldn’t be life otherwise!
I feel kinda the same way… I don’t really like the whole “spontaneous sex” “one night stand” thing. I would prefer to get to know the person I’m going to be intimate with…
But again I have friends that would easily rail a woman in the bathroom of a bar and forget that even happened in a week.
My hope would be that the girls your friend rails behave and feel the same way and their respective partners if they have them know it too, or they’re single and that’s their thing. Maybe they don’t care about herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, or HIV either, because the thrill is worth the risk.
I know that isn’t even mostly the case and most people are behaving in ways they will later regret. But I do think there’s a culture in which we can be more honest and happy with having a bit more love in our lives.
It will take work and conversations like this are a small part of that I guess.
I would be uncomfortable with my partner hooking up with a stranger. That’s a betrayal of our shared values, and creates risks for both of us (e.g. unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and general drama that could create a lot of unnecessary stress). I would rather know that she has fallen for someone we’re both know preferably, and who she loves and believes she can trust implicitly. I would still feel a healthy amount of jealousy, and be worried about thing going wrong, and her being hurt. But I would trust her judgment, and trust she won’t run away and leave me to raise our kid on my own. But yeah, the sex, and intimacy in this case, wouldn’t bother me too much.
Remindes me of the tweet that said something like “My favorite moment on the internet was when someone said, they believe that people will changed their mind when given evidence. Then I linked TWO SOURCES that said otherwise and they were like I still believe it.”
Or when a hexbearian explained to me that hexbear isn’t toxic at all, it’s just when people refuse to read sources but than it’s their fault for not engaging with the material. Later they refused to open my sources.
The person you’re talking to is unlikely to be pursuaded but there’s usually silent, invisible lurkers who can be.
I know I’ve changed my mind on things because of arguments I’ve read on the internet.
It is proven that people do double down on their views when confronted with opposing evidence, but IMO this is more about the psychology of trust and confrontation between individuals, rather than proof of the futility of argument as a concept. Hell, Vsauce made a video called ‘The Future of Reasoning’, where he makes the case that argument might have been selected for as an essential part of human psychology and necessary for our survivial.
Evidence shows that arguments are really only conducive to changing opinions when the person has a set of primers to find the person they disagree with otherwise agreeable. They refer to it as being in alignment with socio-epistemic conditions. Basically, people within a group identity can change opinions with others in the group, as long as the difference in opinion is not one that would be diametrically opposed to their group’s underlying identity. So, arguments between people from two different groups, like left v right, don’t really change minds towards the group they do not identify with. Those watching the debate will agree with the people who are in the same socio-epistemic group. This arguably makes public debate a bad thing. This is because those third party on-lookers will side with the person in the debate they most identify with for reasons outside of the debate. So you are simply platforming the person you disagree with, and possibly exposing people more in alignment with them, to an argument for a more extreme version of their position, rather than exposing them to a counter-opinion argument, to be considered.
Here is a good starting point on this subject, it links to a number of supporting papers early in the paper.
Licensed balloon pilot here… The only manned balloon for which you don’t need a license (in the US) is an ultralight, weighing less than 155lbs empty.
They do exist, though. They’re commonly called “cloudhoppers”. They are basically a climbing harness, backpack straps on a propane tank, and an overhead flamethrower, all hanging underneath a pup tent.
Edit: you can increase the weight to 254lbs empty if instead of a “balloon”, you build a “thermal airship”. Balloons are considered unpowered aircraft because they have no source of propulsion, only lift. Throw some source of propulsion on board - a small electric fan, for example - and it becomes a “powered” aircraft with a higher weight limitation.
Our burners consume raw, liquid propane, at 150PSI to the blast valve. Normally, when liquid expands into a gas, the temperature drops precipitously, and with it, the pressure. However, we feed that liquid propane into a heat exchanger: the coils at the top of the burner. This superheats the propane, allowing it to vaporize easily and rapidly after it passes through the nozzles on the burner ring.
The end result is a 30’ flame.
You’d want to fashion some sort of sling and stock to handle that burner without its usual frame but it’s certainly doable.
How cool, more about cloudhoppers if you’re curious like me. It looks like they start around $23,000, which is a lot considering you can get into paragliding for a lot cheaper than that I think. I would rather paraglide.
Those $23,000 balloons will be certificated aircraft, and will need a licensed pilot, even though they might otherwise qualify as ultralights.
Most ultralight cloudhoppers are homebuilt envelopes with commercial burners and fuel systems. Material cost in the neighborhood of $5000.
My used, complete, certificated system (not a cloudhopper; a regular hot air balloon) was $10,000, including envelope, basket, burners, tanks, fan, trailer, instruments, and a bunch of accessories.
In regular balloons, the sides of the basket are about waist-high. You’re well contained. I get pretty nervous on a ladder or apartment balcony, but I’ve never felt any height-related anxiety in a balloon.
You don’t actually have to fly to enjoy the sport. Crewing is fun by itself. Commercial operators pay pretty well. Private pilots will usually buy you dinner after a flight.
what does a crew do exactly? for that matter, what does the work of a pilot look like? i have been reading your comments, and i can see that planning is certainly a part of it.
Well, you can show up with zero knowledge of ballooning, and the pilot will be grateful for your help. Ballooning is hands-on, blue-collar flying; there is a fair bit of manual labor involved.
At the other end of the spectrum, experienced crew might be charged with pretty much the entire operation of the balloon until it leaves the ground, and as soon as it touches down again, as well as driving/navigating the chase vehicle, landowner relations, weather observation. They can also participate (under pilot or repairman supervision) in inspections, maintenance, minor and major repairs, and all sorts of other ancillary tasks.
As for the pilot, there are all sorts of considerations. For example, the wider the difference between ambient temperature and envelope temperature, the more lift we can produce. But, we have a maximum allowable envelope temperature, so if it hot out, we can’t get as wide of a temperature delta, and can’t reach as high of an altitude. We can’t steer except by changing altitude. Do we have enough lift to reach the altitude layer with favorable winds?
On the flip side, the surface winds often differ significantly from the winds aloft, but if we are within 2000 feet of an obstruction, we have to maintain 500 feet above it. We’ve got a good direction toward a favorable landing zone right now, at treetop level but there is a 1000’ tall antenna tower in front of us. When we climb, where are the winds going to take us?
I expected winds from 270, but the actual winds are from 315, taking me much further right than I had originally planned. Can I continue this flight? Do I need to descend below the floor of the outer ring, or can I stay up high? Do I need to land as soon as practical?
There is a beautiful field in front of us, but a quarter mile ahead, there are high tension wires. If I abort a landing into this field, do I have the climb performance to clear those wires?
I want to get low over the lake and trees for some good pictures, but the nearest landing site past the lake is 6 miles, and sunset is in 90 minutes. Do I have the time and fuel to descend and play, or do I have to stay high and fly on?
It gets more interesting when we introduce competition flying, where you’re trying to reach specific points at specific times, or make the sharpest turn the winds will allow, or grab prize money from the top of a pole, or chase a leader with a head start.
If you’re near Akron, Ohio, message me. I can’t promise a flight, but I can get you up close and personal.
Anywhere else, Google “hot air balloon repair station”. Those guys work on every balloon within a hundred miles of them, and can point you in the right direction.
I appreciate the inclusion, but I would probably be considered phobic, if it came up enough to impact my life more. I rejected a window cubicle because the view was stressful and I avoid glass elevators, but that’s really it. Planes are totally fine, though I try not to dwell on actually being very high in the air.
I rejected a window cubicle because the view was stressful and I avoid glass elevators, but that’s really it.
You’re describing one of my pilots. Seriously. Guy won’t climb past the third rung on a ladder, but flies a balloon.
I recognize the anxiety you’re describing, and I can’t promise that you won’t experience it on a balloon flight but… I crew on about 100 flights a year, 6 passengers per flight, most first-time flyers. When I say it’s a different experience, I’m not talking about mine. I’m basing that on the more-than-a-few conversations I’ve had with people who have described themselves as afraid of heights.
I guess what I’m saying is, if you’re interested in balloons, the community has room for you.
True. The main airspace restrictions on ultralights that are not on certificated aircraft are a prohibition against flying over congested areas (yellow on a sectional chart), and within the lateral boundaries of Class E airspaces around airports. (You can’t fly an ultralight in the class E airspace around an airport, nor in the Class G airspace underneath that Class E)
Certificated aircraft (including balloons) can be flown over congested areas and within Class E and G airspaces.
The limitations on flight in A, B, C, and D airspaces are similar for both: flight is prohibited without specific authorization arranged beforehand.
Interestingly, if an ultralight somehow received permission to enter Class E(controlled) airspace, they still cannot descend into the Class G (uncontrolled) below it. That Class G is within the lateral boundaries of the Class E, and the controller’s authority does not extend to that airspace.
Incorrect. The vast majority of the airspace over the contiguous United States is controlled, though there is a lot of it where participation in ATC is not necessary for VFR flight. From 1,200 feet AGL up to 18,000 feet MSL you’re in Class E, and from 18,000 to 60,000 you’re in Class A. Above that you’re in Class E again. In some places, usually over some un-towered airports, Class E will extend down to 700’ AGL or down to the surface as marked on sectional charts. Class D airspace, as well as the center columns of C and B airspace, extend to the surface.
Class G airspace pretty much only exists below 1,200’ AGL in most places, I think there are remote areas in the middle of the flyover states and Alaska where the Class E floor is higher because there’s nothing there, but that may be changing with ADS-B and shit.
It is not mandatory to participate in air traffic control to fly in Class E airspace. Laymen tend to use “controlled airspace” to mean “off limits without permission” but that’s not how that works; Restricted areas for example require clearance to enter but exist as a separate concept to the alphabet airspace system.
“Controlled airspace” means some part of the air traffic control system has coverage in that area and can provide traffic separation and sequencing for IFR flights. For VFR it’s a little more complicated; in Class A airspace (high altitude en-route airspace) VFR flight is not allowed. Terminal airspace (Class B, C and D, found around airports) participation in ATC is required for all flights. ATC services in Class E airspace is optional for VFR and is on a “workload permitting” basis.
Yep that makes sense. I am more thinking about VFR flight in the context of ultralights. So let me rephrase- in the context of ultralights (VFR) the vast majority of US airspace does not require talking to ATC or even having a radio onboard.
Descend and land. You’d have done that long before “starting to enter” restricted air space. Otherwise enjoy your fine and potentially losing your license once the FAA finds out.
It’s like not you can accidentally enter restricted air space. You know you’re going to be entering the airspace long before you get there so there is plenty of time to take action.
Small airports aren’t really an issue tho. FAA won’t come after you for that. But you should always know where you are, where the restricted air spaces are, with a plan to avoid them. If not you’re fucking up as a captain.
Restricted airspace’s are there for a reason. It’s for safety and not paying attention to them has consequences.
I’m an unlicensed ultralight pilot and I know where I can and cannot fly. Every ultralight pilot I know also knows where to fly (and how to read a sectional).
There are sectional charts on the ground, available to the general public, not just licensed pilots. If you’re going to fly, you are expected to know the relevant airspace long before you fly in it.
That’s true, but “not knowing” is a far more egregious violation. Licensed or not, a pilot is expected to know where they are allowed to fly, and where they actually are. “I didn’t know it was restricted” is the aviation equivalent of driving the wrong way on the freeway.
Sectional Charts are freely available from the FAA in digital form, and cheaply (<$10) available on paper. They have a legend that shows how controlled airspace, congested areas, and airports are depicted, along with more than enough landmarks for orientation. Every pilot, licensed or not, must know where they can and cannot fly their aircraft.
You presume a scenario where you make this realization while you are in the air. In practice, you made this realization hours earlier, and adjusted your flight plan to avoid that problem. You selected a launch site that avoids putting you in that situation.
If I do find myself encroaching on controlled airspace, I could declare an emergency, inform the controller where I am so they can vector traffic away from me, and do what I need to do to get down safely. At the very least, I would expect to do a lot of paperwork, and possibly have my license suspended.
With Class B and C airspace, the boundary is altitude dependent. The outer ring of Class C is 10 miles from the airport. I can fly between 5 and 10 miles of Akron Canton Airport, I just can’t climb above 2500’ MSL while in that area. I generally plan my flights to stay outside 10 miles, with the understanding that I can just stay below their airspace if I happen to get too close.
Small point of grammar: Floating “over” controlled airspace means you are still outside of it. Airspace is 3 dimensional so in addition to having horizontal boundaries, it also has vertical boundaries. Class C airspace for example, which you find around semi-busy airports like Raleigh-Durham International, looks kind of like a quarter stacked on top of a penny, except the stack is 4000 feet tall and 10 miles in diameter. You remain outside of the Class C airspace if you fly directly below the outer “ring.” Or if you fly directly above it. I’ve done both, though I usually make a habit of calling up the approach controller and requesting flight following so that they can talk to me if they need to (“me” being a licensed pilot flying Skyhawks or smaller).
If you are going to fly an ultralight aircraft, you should seek out and receive training about the national airspace system, learn how to read a sectional chart, read things like Part 91, etc. I would advise carrying an aviation COM radio and monitoring local CTAF frequencies.
If flying something like a free balloon, you should know the prevailing conditions before takeoff. If the wind is blowing in the direction of a no no place, just don’t launch. Stay on the ground until conditions for safe and legal flight exist.
Meanwhile, the FAA is arbitrarily regulating 250 gram RC aircraft as if they’re a threat. The industry is simply innovating to increase performance of ultralight RC aircraft to avoid Remote ID requirements.
To be fair, a 250g RC aircraft can cause a lot of destruction to a plane that’s in the process of taking off/landing or to a car on a highway.
Having said that, they really have gone overboard with the regulation. Restrict airspace near airports and over highways, not something as ambiguous as “over people”. They also (still) require a spotter for FPV which is just silly. The point of the spotter is so you can figure out where it went if you lose control (presumably, to take responsibility if it crashes into something important and does some damage). Anyone flying FPV is going to know exactly where the RC aircraft was when they lost control (and modern ones will return themselves home if contact is lost like that).
They need to focus more on regulating features instead of “what and where”. If every RC aircraft has to have a return to home feature that would make more sense than something super ambiguous like, “don’t fly above people.”
Agreed, I have no desire to fly near airports or over 400ft. I’m just flying my FPV quad in my backyard, no other person in sight, and they worry about my 260g drone and not my 240g drone, it’s overlooking much more important things like how you use it and its features, as you said.
The “what and where” requirements are easy to enforce. If a drone goes out of control and strikes a person, it was clearly in violation of a rule against flying over people.
“Return home” is a good start, but it is not enough. The feature set also has to include “see and avoid”. If it can decide to “return home” directly into the side of a manned balloon, it is not safe enough for unrestricted autonomous operation.
I say this as a balloon pilot who has observed drone pilots operating in the vicinity, and even attempting to land on top of a manned balloon.
An RC aircraft is basically a guided missile with a meat grinder at the front. The electric ones are surprisingly more dangerous than the nitro ones. A nitro engine can stall if something gets in the prop. An electric motor just keeps going.
Go talk to some old geezers at your local RC club, they’ll undoubtedly have some nice tall stories about what happens when props get in contact with body parts.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.