3 ms·

I agree. Flying cars (and to some extent supersonic flying) are always hitting barrier called noise. Concorde had limited deployment thanks to noise limitations

I agree. Flying cars (and to some extent supersonic flying) are always hitting barrier called noise. Concorde had limited deployment thanks to noise limitations - was allowed to go supersonic only above oceans, but not enough range to cross Pacific. Flying cars are running against noise barrier head-on and every proponent of flying cars will be surprised that people really does not like scream of 8 vacuum cleaners at 2am.

leobg 4y ago
Yup. I mean, the only reason that video looked beautiful was that this CEO was the only hoverbike in that landscape. And even then they had to put on music to hide the noise. I don't want to downplay the achievement. Building this thing was hard, and I'm sure that flying it must be super fun. Heck, I won't even rule out buying one myself. But when I look at this from the perspective of our ancestors who dreamed of flying, and of our future, I must say: This is not the answer. It's one very clumsy, inelegant iteration, like some 1950s mainframe computer. We should be happy that it exists. But it should exist only as an ancestor to something greater. In other words, we shouldn't celebrate and say we "cracked human flight", or "the flying car", or "democratization of flying". We should not be satisfied with this, at all. And we should remember that, if old Lilienthal saw this, he would be disappointed in us. He'd want us to try harder. (He might even say that it's not "flying like a bird" anymore if it's so loud. That what we've done here is cheating. Like launching a man from a catapult and then claiming we've "solved flying". It just isn't the thing that people imagined when they longed to "fly like a bird".)