4 ms·

This type of thing clearly just doesn't tweak me the way that it tweaks some people. I'm not convinced you could end up with a great way of assigning airport co

This type of thing clearly just doesn't tweak me the way that it tweaks some people. I'm not convinced you could end up with a great way of assigning airport codes today, even if we completely started fresh and we assumed no new airports are ever created. In fact, in a lot of cases the weird corner cases are often situations where you can ask "Would it have been better to stringently apply the rule, or to bend the rule for ease of use?". Does it makes sense for London to have a LON code? Hell yeah! I live in London, I far prefer being able to go "Hey, let's just assume I can go from any London airport", because I know that LGW and LHR serve different destinations, I can get to either fairly easily. It's not maddening for anyone other than someone who wants simple consistent rules. But simple consistent rules isn't the aim, and even if it were the aim, you wouldn't achieve it without serious problems. Let's just What3Words all the airports shall we, that's consistent.

raverbashing 4y ago
Pretty much this. As much as I like CGP calling it "maddening" is a bit clickbaity and ignoring a lot of history there This is like jargon, it exists for a reason, and while some choices could definitely have been better, it is what it is Oh but there is a better choice, the ICAO codes. But the "English please" crowd is never satisfied
sigmoid10 4y ago
This is true for any area that constantly has to come up with new names for things. In physics for example, terms like "recombination," "technicolor" or just "virtual particle" have become profoundly confusing to new students, but naming everything after people or completely new invented words free of misleading context would probably be even worse. Even the term "black hole" was probably not the smartest choice in hindsight, but some people actually pushed back because they considered it obscene back then. This made people like John Wheeler only feel incited and they started publishing papers claiming "black holes have no hair" - which even Feynman thought was a bit too much. And yet today everyone acts like this is perfectly adequate terminology in physics and only people outside the field might get confused.
- theCrowing 4y ago
  I mean a lot of naming happened in the 70s - in California.
- andrepd 4y ago
  I had to think for a solid 30s before I realised what you were implying with the term "black hole". Honestly I think the problem might be in your mind, not the words x)
  - sigmoid10 4y ago
    Well, at least not if you're a child or were raised in a prudish environment. But as the other commenter pointed out, this was the era of physics during woodstock.
- analog31 4y ago
  On the other hand, the behavioral sciences are burdened with the adoption of terminology that carries strong connotations for laypeople, such as "personality" and "subconscious," some of which have taken on a life of their own. And this choice of naming started well before those fields even began to embrace scientific methodology.
makeitdouble 4y ago
I’d argue if it was to be redone from scratch, we’d settle for hierarchical codes with country namespaces. Probably something like us.lax, fr.cdg, ko.inc, or a combination of country + number HK02, GB231 etc. Simple system get approved when there’s low friction in the ruling comitee, as it was the case when few countries were involved in the first place. Once more that 50 members need to agree on something restricting to 3 letters doesn’t work anymore and it becomes compromised after compromises until there is a hack to let each country deal with its own mess.
- macintux 4y ago
  Country namespaces would violate the implied (or maybe explicit) idea that the codes never change.
  - andromeduck 4y ago
    Maybe location hash? Something like what 5 words or plus codes.
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    When Kazakhstan renamed its capital from Astana to Nursultan it also changed airport code from TSE to NQZ. Fun thing is that they have since renamed it back but the code is still NQZ. Why it was TSE before that is left as an excercise for the reader.
- ziml77 4y ago
  The downside to country codes is that countries can change (split, merge, or rename) even when the airports within them haven't. And the idea that the system would fall apart into one where each country manages their own codes doesn't make sense. As stated in the video, the 3 letter codes come from the IATA. Their members are airlines, not countries. They can assign codes in whatever way works for them to communicate with each other where passengers and their bags need to end up.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  ICAO (the UN) set their codes this way. There are 4 letters, the first 2 are a country code. It doesn't work any better than the 3 letter codes you see on your ticket. It's just different.
alistairSH 4y ago
The only part I find “maddening” is when a source intersperses the ICAO and IATA codes. Not a big deal for my local airports - KIAD/IAD and KDCA/DCA, but confusing for places where the codes don’t match (EGLL vs LHR). I’d need to look up EGLL every time, since the 3-letter is what I know from ticketing/baggage. But, that doesn’t really happen much in anyplace that matters. Usually just in casual conversation about airports/flying.

raverbashing 4y ago

Pretty much this. As much as I like CGP calling it "maddening" is a bit clickbaity and ignoring a lot of history there This is like jargon, it exists for a reason, and while some choices could definitely have been better, it is what it is Oh but there is a better choice, the ICAO codes. But the "English please" crowd is never satisfied

sigmoid10 4y ago

This is true for any area that constantly has to come up with new names for things. In physics for example, terms like "recombination," "technicolor" or just "virtual particle" have become profoundly confusing to new students, but naming everything after people or completely new invented words free of misleading context would probably be even worse. Even the term "black hole" was probably not the smartest choice in hindsight, but some people actually pushed back because they considered it obscene back then. This made people like John Wheeler only feel incited and they started publishing papers claiming "black holes have no hair" - which even Feynman thought was a bit too much. And yet today everyone acts like this is perfectly adequate terminology in physics and only people outside the field might get confused.

theCrowing 4y ago
I mean a lot of naming happened in the 70s - in California.
andrepd 4y ago
I had to think for a solid 30s before I realised what you were implying with the term "black hole". Honestly I think the problem might be in your mind, not the words x)
- sigmoid10 4y ago
  Well, at least not if you're a child or were raised in a prudish environment. But as the other commenter pointed out, this was the era of physics during woodstock.
analog31 4y ago
On the other hand, the behavioral sciences are burdened with the adoption of terminology that carries strong connotations for laypeople, such as "personality" and "subconscious," some of which have taken on a life of their own. And this choice of naming started well before those fields even began to embrace scientific methodology.

makeitdouble 4y ago

I’d argue if it was to be redone from scratch, we’d settle for hierarchical codes with country namespaces. Probably something like us.lax, fr.cdg, ko.inc, or a combination of country + number HK02, GB231 etc. Simple system get approved when there’s low friction in the ruling comitee, as it was the case when few countries were involved in the first place. Once more that 50 members need to agree on something restricting to 3 letters doesn’t work anymore and it becomes compromised after compromises until there is a hack to let each country deal with its own mess.

macintux 4y ago
Country namespaces would violate the implied (or maybe explicit) idea that the codes never change.
- andromeduck 4y ago
  Maybe location hash? Something like what 5 words or plus codes.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  When Kazakhstan renamed its capital from Astana to Nursultan it also changed airport code from TSE to NQZ. Fun thing is that they have since renamed it back but the code is still NQZ. Why it was TSE before that is left as an excercise for the reader.
ziml77 4y ago
The downside to country codes is that countries can change (split, merge, or rename) even when the airports within them haven't. And the idea that the system would fall apart into one where each country manages their own codes doesn't make sense. As stated in the video, the 3 letter codes come from the IATA. Their members are airlines, not countries. They can assign codes in whatever way works for them to communicate with each other where passengers and their bags need to end up.
marcosdumay 4y ago
ICAO (the UN) set their codes this way. There are 4 letters, the first 2 are a country code. It doesn't work any better than the 3 letter codes you see on your ticket. It's just different.

alistairSH 4y ago

The only part I find “maddening” is when a source intersperses the ICAO and IATA codes. Not a big deal for my local airports - KIAD/IAD and KDCA/DCA, but confusing for places where the codes don’t match (EGLL vs LHR). I’d need to look up EGLL every time, since the 3-letter is what I know from ticketing/baggage. But, that doesn’t really happen much in anyplace that matters. Usually just in casual conversation about airports/flying.