4 ms·

They do this already. They're called helicopters.

ben_w 4y ago
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, making it cheap enough that mono-millionaires can do it regularly is going to make a big difference compared to the status quo.
- wildmanx 4y ago
  > mono-millionaires Ah right, moving it from 0.1%-ers to 1%-ers is really going to make a big difference.
  - brrrrrm 4y ago
    About 10x, right?
  - jxf 4y ago
    Roughly 10% of Americans are millionaires, for reference (though I doubt all of that is liquid).
    - wildmanx 4y ago
      Alright, the actual figure is $1,2M for the 90-percentile household net worth. For the individual that's to be divided by 3 (since there are about 120M households in the U.S.). We are at the 96-percentile for $3M household net worth. So yeah, 4%-ers then. Really makes a big difference to my point. This is totally gonna change everybody's life. (I.e. those who can afford it, while the majority is scraping by from paycheck to paycheck.)
    - edg-l 4y ago
      this comment reminded me of this http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/ http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Sources online show that about 8% of Americans are millionaires, with a significant bump during COVID (probably because of the stock market.) About 10% of households are. It's hard to find precise qualifications for how they determine that, though. The households figure doesn't include primary residence value (why?), and the individual statistics don't mention liquidity. I suspect that only a small percent of that 8% actually has $1+ million liquid.
      - idlehand 4y ago
        Definitely not liquid cash, but assuming that a not insignificant portion of those people are retirees or planning to retire soonish (which is when net worth peaks), I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of decently liquid assets like stocks and bonds are higher than you might think.
    - Deritio 4y ago
      Owning a house doesn't just allow you to fly business all the time
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I don't know. The idea that a bunch of people with a couple of millions of dollars in wealth can now zip around above my house (and further alienate themselves from civic reality, even more so than cars do) seems like a pretty bad outcome.
  - ghastmaster 4y ago
    That is essentially how progress begins in every industry. Wealthy people pay for new tech with their vast fortunes, and many times, their lives. Once they work out the kinks and economies of scale take over, the less wealthy enjoy the same tech at higher levels of safety and lower prices.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      I wonder how often that's true, or a myth of uber-capitalism - sort of a trickle-down theory for tech. AFAIK, it's often government that pays for new tech, and then once it has a profitable nitch, corporations.
      - ghastmaster 4y ago
        That is true to a large extent today. Sadly, most of the foundations of the tech we have today is based on tech we had developed before governments were involved to level they are today. Cars, trains, engines, CRT, film, computers, telephone, building materials, and much much more, are seemingly only being tweaked. The rapid pace of truly innovative tech has waned. Is this because of government involvement? Is this because our understanding of basic science allowed us to pass some threshold, only to be stymied by the increasing complexity and having to devote more time and material to test the nuances? Blockchain was supposedly created by a single person. The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States has mentioned creating a digital currency. As they pump more money into that idea and develop some neat tweaks or totally control blockchains, will we look back in 50 years and say, "Look at how much the government did for blockchain." forgetting that it exists in the first place to spite them?
    - donthellbanme 4y ago
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
Well, _electric_ helicopters or electric helicopter-equivalent-vehicles would be a step forwards, correct?
staunch 4y ago
> They do this already. They're called helicopters. This is dangerously close to the infamous HN Dropbox critique[1] :-D And it's likely wrong in the same way. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  Past performance is not an indicator of future performance?
vidarh 4y ago
Helicopters are expensive to rent. If Lilium achieves even 10x the cost they've suggested they can reach in the past, they'll be attractive to a customer base who'd never be able to afford regular helicopter rides.

On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, making it cheap enough that mono-millionaires can do it regularly is going to make a big difference compared to the status quo.

wildmanx 4y ago
> mono-millionaires Ah right, moving it from 0.1%-ers to 1%-ers is really going to make a big difference.
- brrrrrm 4y ago
  About 10x, right?
- jxf 4y ago
  Roughly 10% of Americans are millionaires, for reference (though I doubt all of that is liquid).
  - wildmanx 4y ago
    Alright, the actual figure is $1,2M for the 90-percentile household net worth. For the individual that's to be divided by 3 (since there are about 120M households in the U.S.). We are at the 96-percentile for $3M household net worth. So yeah, 4%-ers then. Really makes a big difference to my point. This is totally gonna change everybody's life. (I.e. those who can afford it, while the majority is scraping by from paycheck to paycheck.)
  - edg-l 4y ago
    this comment reminded me of this http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/ http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Sources online show that about 8% of Americans are millionaires, with a significant bump during COVID (probably because of the stock market.) About 10% of households are. It's hard to find precise qualifications for how they determine that, though. The households figure doesn't include primary residence value (why?), and the individual statistics don't mention liquidity. I suspect that only a small percent of that 8% actually has $1+ million liquid.
    - idlehand 4y ago
      Definitely not liquid cash, but assuming that a not insignificant portion of those people are retirees or planning to retire soonish (which is when net worth peaks), I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of decently liquid assets like stocks and bonds are higher than you might think.
  - Deritio 4y ago
    Owning a house doesn't just allow you to fly business all the time
woodruffw 4y ago
I don't know. The idea that a bunch of people with a couple of millions of dollars in wealth can now zip around above my house (and further alienate themselves from civic reality, even more so than cars do) seems like a pretty bad outcome.
- ghastmaster 4y ago
  That is essentially how progress begins in every industry. Wealthy people pay for new tech with their vast fortunes, and many times, their lives. Once they work out the kinks and economies of scale take over, the less wealthy enjoy the same tech at higher levels of safety and lower prices.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    I wonder how often that's true, or a myth of uber-capitalism - sort of a trickle-down theory for tech. AFAIK, it's often government that pays for new tech, and then once it has a profitable nitch, corporations.
    - ghastmaster 4y ago
      That is true to a large extent today. Sadly, most of the foundations of the tech we have today is based on tech we had developed before governments were involved to level they are today. Cars, trains, engines, CRT, film, computers, telephone, building materials, and much much more, are seemingly only being tweaked. The rapid pace of truly innovative tech has waned. Is this because of government involvement? Is this because our understanding of basic science allowed us to pass some threshold, only to be stymied by the increasing complexity and having to devote more time and material to test the nuances? Blockchain was supposedly created by a single person. The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States has mentioned creating a digital currency. As they pump more money into that idea and develop some neat tweaks or totally control blockchains, will we look back in 50 years and say, "Look at how much the government did for blockchain." forgetting that it exists in the first place to spite them?
  - donthellbanme 4y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

Well, _electric_ helicopters or electric helicopter-equivalent-vehicles would be a step forwards, correct?

staunch 4y ago

> They do this already. They're called helicopters. This is dangerously close to the infamous HN Dropbox critique[1] :-D And it's likely wrong in the same way. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance?

vidarh 4y ago

Helicopters are expensive to rent. If Lilium achieves even 10x the cost they've suggested they can reach in the past, they'll be attractive to a customer base who'd never be able to afford regular helicopter rides.