5 ms·

Buckle Up for Bumpier Skies

94 points by littlexsparkee 8mo ago

nineteen999 8mo ago
> Can today’s planes still keep us safe? Probably not if the turbines aren't spinning, no.
- Onavo 8mo ago
  Presumably the article is more referring to turbulence at a macro scale. If the air is so turbulent that the compressor blades stall because of it, well, we have bigger problems.
  - nineteen999 8mo ago
    I was referring to the really obvious animation (or lack of) at the top of the page. But yeah once again it seemed to go over the heads of the oblivious around here...
ur-whale 8mo ago
https://archive.is/g7hT1 https://archive.is/g7hT1
_fw 8mo ago
The WebGL animation at the top is really cool. It’s probably smaller than a video too, and much sharper
- sarreph 8mo ago
  When I saw this comment before loading the article, I thought “this is probably the New Yorker”. I think they produce the best visuals across all the online publications.
  - fishcrackers 8mo ago
    it's a video? https://media.newyorker.com/clips/69960546794abe05fcc0ae2e/master/ https://media.newyorker.com/clips/69960546794abe05fcc0ae2e/m...
    - _fw 8mo ago
      Well flabber my gasts. I’ve never seen a video that sharp and well optimised on a mobile page… Goes to show how good things can look when done right!
- amelius 8mo ago
  I wonder how they modeled the clouds and the aerodynamics near the tips of the wings.
- hooch 8mo ago
  The artist https://www.carlburton.io/ https://www.carlburton.io/
- antonvs 8mo ago
  What makes you think it's WebGL? It looks like an mp4 to me, at least I was able to download the mp4. It's sharp because it's high resolution. But maybe they're serving different content depending on the client.
  - brightbeige 8mo ago
    I’m a subscriber with the mobile app and the “video” is a still image for me.
  - _fw 8mo ago
    You’re right - I confidently asserted an assumption and turned out to be totally wrong. I had no idea videos on mobile sites could look that sharp and well integrated… I guess I’m used to seeing them done so badly this one stuck out, so I thought it had to be WebGL
jsrozner 8mo ago
Idk but the analogies in the piece strike as AI generated. I don't think the new yorker is using AI to write pieces, so maybe the author has just been ingesting too much slop
- A_D_E_P_T 8mo ago
  If it weren't the New Yorker, I'd swear up and down that Claude wrote this: > Turbulence is rarely that simple. It’s too scattered, too mercurial, too easily triggered by weather patterns that trigger other patterns in an endless cascade. “It’s not just one thing that’s going on,” Bob Sharman, an atmospheric scientist at NCAR, told me. “It’s not just atmospheric convection. It’s not just wind flowing over mountains. It’s everything going on all the time and interacting.” > “It’s not a piece of farm equipment,” Larson said. “It’s a life-support system. At thirty-five thousand feet, you can’t pull over.” The funny thing is that the passages that feel the most "AI-generated" come in quotes, when the author is quoting others. It could be that the author was communicating with those experts via email, and they used AI to generate their responses. Otherwise, I think that AI language patters are diffusing into common use. Being so aware of them is a curse...
  - notarobot123 8mo ago
    It isn't only LLMs that use rhetorical constructs like these, humans use them too.
    - kuhaku22 8mo ago
      Not to mention these patterns didn't come out of thin air. The LLMs are statistically regurgitating language from its training set, which researchers probably tuned more towards journalistic sources like the one we're reading.
      - CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
        You're right of course. And it's cliche now, thanks to LLMs, so outlets like the New Yorker who pride themselves on good or interesting writing (which includes avoiding cliches) ought to find alternative rhetorical structuring.
kuhaku22 8mo ago
I liked the article for its brief foray into aviation history, something I wasn't too familiar with myself past the standard Wright Brothers factoids, and for making me appreciate the smooth rides I've luckily had, especially compared to that poor Singapore Airlines flight. The author is also good at conveying the visual feelings associated with turbulence despite only using words. Though I do feel more photographs wouldn't have hurt: like of the glider, NCAR's buildings, the Boeing hangar, visualizations of Cornman's software, and the turbulence simulator. The article is a good reminder why politics matter and why we can't keep on seeing climate change as some far-off issue that future generations will just bear the brunt of. > and there was talk of dismantling NCAR altogether. Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, had called the research center “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.”
- birdsongs 8mo ago
  Agree. The shocking part of the history for me was those few planes in the 60's that were literally torn apart by turbulence. I never knew that. I looked it up, BOAC Flight 911: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911 Also the fact that the turbulence models for design stressors, for planes manufactured today, were from those original measurements in the 60's. Science needs to stay at the forefront here with the earth changing, I only hope that the political situation improves to allow that to remain a priority. I love flying for the engineering aspect, when I manage to turn off my scared animal-brain. It's absolutely mind blowing the technology and iterative designs these machines have gone through.
  - metalman 8mo ago
    somewhere, are videos of TTD testing of wings on passenger aircraft, and other video of the two guys doing final assembly of the wing fasteners on an airbus, nasa has nothing on them. and even humble cessena trainers, where "nobody has pulled the wings off one yet" all that, and there are still many many ways for things to go horribly wrong...iceing, mega down drafts, mega UP drafts, that just grab an aircraft and take it on a 5000'+ min elevator ride, or side drafts, put you up, strait up on one wing, ask me how I know. more, but for sure what we get next is just that, more weather
fisian 8mo ago
For the part which talks about turbulence damping, this page illustrates how this looks like on a smaller plane: https://turbulence-solutions.aero/technology/ https://turbulence-solutions.aero/technology/ (Not affiliated, just saw their demo once.)
amelius 8mo ago
Airplane travel is becoming incompatible with humans ... Looks like the singularity is coming just in time.
alpineman 8mo ago
Would be karma for all the unnecessary flights we have taken as a species. In particular anyone who does 'mileage runs' and emits huge amounts of CO2 just so they have the 'privilege' to sit in a slightly nicer chair in a dull airport lounge.
- gruez 8mo ago
  >In particular anyone who does 'mileage runs' and emits huge amounts of CO2 just so they have the 'privilege' to sit in a slightly nicer chair in a dull airport lounge. I doubt anyone is doing this? At best they're grinding out flights so they can get free first/business class seats later.
  - Archonical 8mo ago
    People do this to meet minimum requirements for mileage tiers, e.g. I know someone who was close to Diamond status on Delta and went to Miami and back without leaving the airport area just for the miles.
  - gib444 8mo ago
    Look on the Flyertalk BA forum 2005-2020. Was a huge thing and not always for upgrades, because BA have been stingy with upgrades for a long long time. Lounge access/baggage/priority boarding etc was a huge part of it Popular mileage runs were London to Honolulu with lots of sectors on the way iirc !!
wartywhoa23 8mo ago
Onion news would put that better: "The fucking goddamn shit called air that had been working since the first heavier-than-your-ass airplane just stopped working yesterday, american scientists are flabbergasted, and you douchebags must be sure as heck too!"
long-time-first 8mo ago
[flagged]

nineteen999 8mo ago

> Can today’s planes still keep us safe? Probably not if the turbines aren't spinning, no.

Onavo 8mo ago
Presumably the article is more referring to turbulence at a macro scale. If the air is so turbulent that the compressor blades stall because of it, well, we have bigger problems.
- nineteen999 8mo ago
  I was referring to the really obvious animation (or lack of) at the top of the page. But yeah once again it seemed to go over the heads of the oblivious around here...

ur-whale 8mo ago

https://archive.is/g7hT1 https://archive.is/g7hT1

_fw 8mo ago

The WebGL animation at the top is really cool. It’s probably smaller than a video too, and much sharper

sarreph 8mo ago
When I saw this comment before loading the article, I thought “this is probably the New Yorker”. I think they produce the best visuals across all the online publications.
- fishcrackers 8mo ago
  it's a video? https://media.newyorker.com/clips/69960546794abe05fcc0ae2e/master/ https://media.newyorker.com/clips/69960546794abe05fcc0ae2e/m...
  - _fw 8mo ago
    Well flabber my gasts. I’ve never seen a video that sharp and well optimised on a mobile page… Goes to show how good things can look when done right!
amelius 8mo ago
I wonder how they modeled the clouds and the aerodynamics near the tips of the wings.
hooch 8mo ago
The artist https://www.carlburton.io/ https://www.carlburton.io/
antonvs 8mo ago
What makes you think it's WebGL? It looks like an mp4 to me, at least I was able to download the mp4. It's sharp because it's high resolution. But maybe they're serving different content depending on the client.
- brightbeige 8mo ago
  I’m a subscriber with the mobile app and the “video” is a still image for me.
- _fw 8mo ago
  You’re right - I confidently asserted an assumption and turned out to be totally wrong. I had no idea videos on mobile sites could look that sharp and well integrated… I guess I’m used to seeing them done so badly this one stuck out, so I thought it had to be WebGL

jsrozner 8mo ago

Idk but the analogies in the piece strike as AI generated. I don't think the new yorker is using AI to write pieces, so maybe the author has just been ingesting too much slop

A_D_E_P_T 8mo ago
If it weren't the New Yorker, I'd swear up and down that Claude wrote this: > Turbulence is rarely that simple. It’s too scattered, too mercurial, too easily triggered by weather patterns that trigger other patterns in an endless cascade. “It’s not just one thing that’s going on,” Bob Sharman, an atmospheric scientist at NCAR, told me. “It’s not just atmospheric convection. It’s not just wind flowing over mountains. It’s everything going on all the time and interacting.” > “It’s not a piece of farm equipment,” Larson said. “It’s a life-support system. At thirty-five thousand feet, you can’t pull over.” The funny thing is that the passages that feel the most "AI-generated" come in quotes, when the author is quoting others. It could be that the author was communicating with those experts via email, and they used AI to generate their responses. Otherwise, I think that AI language patters are diffusing into common use. Being so aware of them is a curse...
- notarobot123 8mo ago
  It isn't only LLMs that use rhetorical constructs like these, humans use them too.
  - kuhaku22 8mo ago
    Not to mention these patterns didn't come out of thin air. The LLMs are statistically regurgitating language from its training set, which researchers probably tuned more towards journalistic sources like the one we're reading.
    - CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
      You're right of course. And it's cliche now, thanks to LLMs, so outlets like the New Yorker who pride themselves on good or interesting writing (which includes avoiding cliches) ought to find alternative rhetorical structuring.

kuhaku22 8mo ago

I liked the article for its brief foray into aviation history, something I wasn't too familiar with myself past the standard Wright Brothers factoids, and for making me appreciate the smooth rides I've luckily had, especially compared to that poor Singapore Airlines flight. The author is also good at conveying the visual feelings associated with turbulence despite only using words. Though I do feel more photographs wouldn't have hurt: like of the glider, NCAR's buildings, the Boeing hangar, visualizations of Cornman's software, and the turbulence simulator. The article is a good reminder why politics matter and why we can't keep on seeing climate change as some far-off issue that future generations will just bear the brunt of. > and there was talk of dismantling NCAR altogether. Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, had called the research center “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.”

birdsongs 8mo ago
Agree. The shocking part of the history for me was those few planes in the 60's that were literally torn apart by turbulence. I never knew that. I looked it up, BOAC Flight 911: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911 Also the fact that the turbulence models for design stressors, for planes manufactured today, were from those original measurements in the 60's. Science needs to stay at the forefront here with the earth changing, I only hope that the political situation improves to allow that to remain a priority. I love flying for the engineering aspect, when I manage to turn off my scared animal-brain. It's absolutely mind blowing the technology and iterative designs these machines have gone through.
- metalman 8mo ago
  somewhere, are videos of TTD testing of wings on passenger aircraft, and other video of the two guys doing final assembly of the wing fasteners on an airbus, nasa has nothing on them. and even humble cessena trainers, where "nobody has pulled the wings off one yet" all that, and there are still many many ways for things to go horribly wrong...iceing, mega down drafts, mega UP drafts, that just grab an aircraft and take it on a 5000'+ min elevator ride, or side drafts, put you up, strait up on one wing, ask me how I know. more, but for sure what we get next is just that, more weather

fisian 8mo ago

For the part which talks about turbulence damping, this page illustrates how this looks like on a smaller plane: https://turbulence-solutions.aero/technology/ https://turbulence-solutions.aero/technology/ (Not affiliated, just saw their demo once.)

amelius 8mo ago

Airplane travel is becoming incompatible with humans ... Looks like the singularity is coming just in time.

alpineman 8mo ago

Would be karma for all the unnecessary flights we have taken as a species. In particular anyone who does 'mileage runs' and emits huge amounts of CO2 just so they have the 'privilege' to sit in a slightly nicer chair in a dull airport lounge.

gruez 8mo ago
>In particular anyone who does 'mileage runs' and emits huge amounts of CO2 just so they have the 'privilege' to sit in a slightly nicer chair in a dull airport lounge. I doubt anyone is doing this? At best they're grinding out flights so they can get free first/business class seats later.
- Archonical 8mo ago
  People do this to meet minimum requirements for mileage tiers, e.g. I know someone who was close to Diamond status on Delta and went to Miami and back without leaving the airport area just for the miles.
- gib444 8mo ago
  Look on the Flyertalk BA forum 2005-2020. Was a huge thing and not always for upgrades, because BA have been stingy with upgrades for a long long time. Lounge access/baggage/priority boarding etc was a huge part of it Popular mileage runs were London to Honolulu with lots of sectors on the way iirc !!

wartywhoa23 8mo ago

Onion news would put that better: "The fucking goddamn shit called air that had been working since the first heavier-than-your-ass airplane just stopped working yesterday, american scientists are flabbergasted, and you douchebags must be sure as heck too!"

long-time-first 8mo ago

[flagged]