5 ms·

It took China for once having an independent policy instead of "impartial" agencies pushing their agenda onto a defenseless world. May I remember that most HN

It took China for once having an independent policy instead of "impartial" agencies pushing their agenda onto a defenseless world. May I remember that most HN jumped to defend Boeing and the FAA, without a shred of evidence? I welcome our Chinese overlords. Competition is good.

mikeash 8y ago
I don’t remember that, can you show some examples?
- gonvaled 8y ago
  This is the story [1]. Without a truly independent power standing strong, we would still be flying the Max. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19356138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19356138
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    The first three top-level comments all laud the decision. That would appear to be the opposite of your central claim that May I remember that most HN jumped to defend Boeing and the FAA, without a shred of evidence?. Maybe you would be able to make a better point if you dropped the jingoism and histrionics. It can also be helpful to not lump the tens of thousands of people here into one bin of “HN did x” when trying to make that point.
    - gonvaled 8y ago
      My central claim is this: > It took China for once having an independent policy instead of "impartial" agencies pushing their agenda onto a defenseless world. And I stand by my comment about HN: I clearly remember the bias on the discussion. The top comments are top comments once the story settles. And the replies to those comments show a different picture. > Maybe you would be able to make a better point if you dropped the jingoism and histrionics. There is something worse than being slightly offensive: being biased and pushing damaging narratives onto the rest of us. Let's notice that the truth has come out because a Max crash would also affect americans. Whenever interests are not so nicely alligned, we in the rest of the world end up paying the price.
      - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        You keep raising the issue of bias, but the one piece of supporting “evidence” for that bias doesn’t support your claim. You brush that off by saying it changed “after the story settled” as if that meant something. I’m thinking that a mirror might help you with your bias concerns.
        gonvaled 8y ago
        You keep adressing my secondary point. The one that seems to personally hurt you. Stories evolve. Top voted comments change. The replies to those are also part of the discussion, and some are highly voted too. My top comment in this discussion has started being downvoted. This might change, but it will still be the case that a big part of the HN audience disagrees with me.
        toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        You keep adressing my secondary point. The one that seems to personally hurt you. Here’s an alternative theory... I didn’t take it personally because I didn’t take the stance you’re criticizing. Now you’re left in the untenable position of assuming I was offended on the behalf of some strangers, or what bothers me is unrelated to “hurtfulness” and has to do with something else. My top comment in this discussion has started being downvoted. This might change, but it will still be the case that a big part of the HN audience disagrees with me. Again, perspective is your friend. Maybe people disagree with you, maybe they disagree with how you’re saying what you’re saying, or maybe they agree with parts, but not the whole. This is yet another illustration of the perils in treating s diverse community as a monolith. For example my problem with your original comment was the signal:noise ratio, best illustrated by the complete innacuracy of how you characterized the reaction of so many people. Your latter day hand-waving about “it changed over time” is more of the same.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I looked at every top-level comment on that story and didn’t see a single one defending Boeing or the FAA.
    - gonvaled 8y ago
      See my reply to your sibling
      - mikeash 8y ago
        I don’t see how that addresses what I said. I didn’t just look at the most upvoted comments. I looked at all of the top-level comments. Not one of them was as you said.
PaulHoule 8y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 which is another boring narrowbody which is not technically ambitious at all and could only compete with the long-in-the-tooth 737 and the slightly newer A320. I'd like to see somebody shake up the market with a plane that is small on the outside and big on the inside like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family but you won't see it used heavily in the U.S. because of pilot union scope rules.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  I meant competition against the FAA, not against boeing.
- Bendingo 8y ago
  What do you think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MC-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MC-21 ?
bilbo0s 8y ago
It's not about China being any "smarter* than anyone else. Here's the reality, the consequences, both financial and otherwise, for being wrong in China are a good deal more deleterious. (Ever lose that kind of a job for incompetence in China? You won't be getting another one.) So, not surprisingly, Chinese airlines, experts and regulators will more readily err on the side of caution. Simple as that. It's just basic human psychology. By comparison, there are no consequences at all if you or I are incorrect in some assertion we make on Hacker News. Certainly no lasting repercussions of any great concern. So making that comparison as you did is a bit non-sensical. Of course experts do things differently than some randoms on HN.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  I am not saying they are smarter. I am saying they are getting big enough that they can face the bully.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    I misinterpreted your post. I apologize.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    That could have been more clearly and nonpejoratively articulated.
    - gonvaled 8y ago
      I fail to see where I was pejorative. I was confrontational, yes. You are right on the clarity department.
      - dredmorbius 8y ago
        Characterisation of "most HN" and "Chinese overlords". Your comment would read better absent both comments. The notion of China being able to respond independently, with agency, is valid.

mikeash 8y ago

I don’t remember that, can you show some examples?

gonvaled 8y ago
This is the story [1]. Without a truly independent power standing strong, we would still be flying the Max. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19356138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19356138
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  The first three top-level comments all laud the decision. That would appear to be the opposite of your central claim that May I remember that most HN jumped to defend Boeing and the FAA, without a shred of evidence?. Maybe you would be able to make a better point if you dropped the jingoism and histrionics. It can also be helpful to not lump the tens of thousands of people here into one bin of “HN did x” when trying to make that point.
  - gonvaled 8y ago
    My central claim is this: > It took China for once having an independent policy instead of "impartial" agencies pushing their agenda onto a defenseless world. And I stand by my comment about HN: I clearly remember the bias on the discussion. The top comments are top comments once the story settles. And the replies to those comments show a different picture. > Maybe you would be able to make a better point if you dropped the jingoism and histrionics. There is something worse than being slightly offensive: being biased and pushing damaging narratives onto the rest of us. Let's notice that the truth has come out because a Max crash would also affect americans. Whenever interests are not so nicely alligned, we in the rest of the world end up paying the price.
    - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
      You keep raising the issue of bias, but the one piece of supporting “evidence” for that bias doesn’t support your claim. You brush that off by saying it changed “after the story settled” as if that meant something. I’m thinking that a mirror might help you with your bias concerns.
      - gonvaled 8y ago
        You keep adressing my secondary point. The one that seems to personally hurt you. Stories evolve. Top voted comments change. The replies to those are also part of the discussion, and some are highly voted too. My top comment in this discussion has started being downvoted. This might change, but it will still be the case that a big part of the HN audience disagrees with me.
        toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        You keep adressing my secondary point. The one that seems to personally hurt you. Here’s an alternative theory... I didn’t take it personally because I didn’t take the stance you’re criticizing. Now you’re left in the untenable position of assuming I was offended on the behalf of some strangers, or what bothers me is unrelated to “hurtfulness” and has to do with something else. My top comment in this discussion has started being downvoted. This might change, but it will still be the case that a big part of the HN audience disagrees with me. Again, perspective is your friend. Maybe people disagree with you, maybe they disagree with how you’re saying what you’re saying, or maybe they agree with parts, but not the whole. This is yet another illustration of the perils in treating s diverse community as a monolith. For example my problem with your original comment was the signal:noise ratio, best illustrated by the complete innacuracy of how you characterized the reaction of so many people. Your latter day hand-waving about “it changed over time” is more of the same.
- mikeash 8y ago
  I looked at every top-level comment on that story and didn’t see a single one defending Boeing or the FAA.
  - gonvaled 8y ago
    See my reply to your sibling
    - mikeash 8y ago
      I don’t see how that addresses what I said. I didn’t just look at the most upvoted comments. I looked at all of the top-level comments. Not one of them was as you said.

PaulHoule 8y ago

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 which is another boring narrowbody which is not technically ambitious at all and could only compete with the long-in-the-tooth 737 and the slightly newer A320. I'd like to see somebody shake up the market with a plane that is small on the outside and big on the inside like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family but you won't see it used heavily in the U.S. because of pilot union scope rules.

gonvaled 8y ago
I meant competition against the FAA, not against boeing.
Bendingo 8y ago
What do you think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MC-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MC-21 ?

bilbo0s 8y ago

It's not about China being any "smarter* than anyone else. Here's the reality, the consequences, both financial and otherwise, for being wrong in China are a good deal more deleterious. (Ever lose that kind of a job for incompetence in China? You won't be getting another one.) So, not surprisingly, Chinese airlines, experts and regulators will more readily err on the side of caution. Simple as that. It's just basic human psychology. By comparison, there are no consequences at all if you or I are incorrect in some assertion we make on Hacker News. Certainly no lasting repercussions of any great concern. So making that comparison as you did is a bit non-sensical. Of course experts do things differently than some randoms on HN.

gonvaled 8y ago
I am not saying they are smarter. I am saying they are getting big enough that they can face the bully.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  I misinterpreted your post. I apologize.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  That could have been more clearly and nonpejoratively articulated.
  - gonvaled 8y ago
    I fail to see where I was pejorative. I was confrontational, yes. You are right on the clarity department.
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      Characterisation of "most HN" and "Chinese overlords". Your comment would read better absent both comments. The notion of China being able to respond independently, with agency, is valid.