4 ms·

...but physics isn't something that cares If you want to disrupt.

• hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  I think this is such an important point to differentiate. Yes, incumbent experts can be caught flat-footed when a new technology comes along that is essentially just much better at what they do. Best example in my mind is the iPhone, where essentially the big old-school cell phone execs totally poo-poo'ed Apple's ability to create a compelling cell phone in 2008: "A computer company doesn't know what they're doing." But that is fundamentally different than pointing out real physical limitations of an idea, and the danger is you get exactly the OP response, "The old guard always dismisses you until you change the world!" yada yada. This is basically exactly what happened with Theranos - anyone in the actual field of microfluidics knew it was all bullshit.
  • wmf 5y ago
    Of course, but it seems like the gap between what is physically possible and what has been demonstrated is pretty large when it comes to aircraft. Has anyone made a specific argument that Lilium violates the laws of physics?
    • kiba 5y ago
      How energy efficient is this concept? Can't this air taxi thing be done with better public transport and urban design?
      • gibolt 5y ago
        Air taxis are unlikely to become as common as the industry hopes. But helicopters are already viable. Increase reliability, drop upfront/operating costs an order of magnitude, and make it autonomous to remove cost of a pilot; then you have a lot more cases where it would be a viable option.