Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@qoto.org

80 years ago, August 1st 1943, Saint Louis Missouri: A CG-4 glider is demonstrated at an airshow. Its right wing *falls off* immediately after release, killing on impact: two air force crewmen, the *mayor of the city*, the *co-founder of the manufacturer of the failed glider* (who also funded Charles Lindbergh's plane), and six other VIPs. In front of thousands of spectators.

The cause? A company that normally built coffins made the wing strut, and they used too thin of metal.

The result? Several inspectors were relieved of duty.

The company that built the glider survived and was eventually bought out, and now lives on... as American Airlines.

And that was just one incident. It really puts the ongoing media circus around one Boeing failure with no major injuries in perspective.

@WiredForFlight @w7voa Yeah, agreed. I noted in a later reply that this was definitely a closer call than most, but I'm just sick and tired of every little problem (with zero injuries) getting reported like some major catastrophe.

Also, Glider Snatch Pickups are cool as hell and look scary AF.

Man, people in the past DNGAF.

It's like they specifically said "land this thing as close to the camera as you can even if it means mowing down the guy behind it."

#Aviation #Glider #WWII

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx6CcaT2d1vOZOWCPwPfgb4170E5AMYoSr?feature=shared

@w7voa No, I fly smaller planes. And, admittedly, in this particular instance, it was a nearer miss than most, but revoking clearance after it's been given is still very common.

@jeffjarvis LOL. WSJ agreeing with millennials that it's all the boomers' fault.

@w7voa THIS ISNT NEWS.

It's routine. It happens to me like once a month. Some planes are faster than others and sometimes they give clearance thinking you have time, and then have to revoke it when the other plane gets where it's going a little faster than expected.

Just saw a dump truck with a sign on the back saying "stay back 200 feet. Not responsible for windshield damage".

That... wouldn't hold up in a court, right #LawFedi? If a truck loses its load, it's not the vehicle behind its fault, right?

@admitsWrongIfProven You're assuming the AIs will want our respect in the first place.

@admitsWrongIfProven That assumes there's only one.

@kegill This recusal thing is mind-boggling.

If they truly believe in the legitimacy of their own court, then they have literally nothing to lose by recusing.

But they have potentially everything to lose by refusing to recuse themselves when it's blatantly obvious they should.

Is it hubris? Ego? I'm not one to jump to malice, but I can't rule it out either.

@D_J_Nathanson Agreed. I feel terrible for IT departments across the world.

How do we avoid this grim future?

By funding idealists who believe in firm principles instead of pragmatists who just want to get past the line first.

Unfortunately, though, those idealists offer like 2% lower ROI, so we're just completely and totally fucked.

The truth of the matter is that if they're created by humans, then they'll quickly create their own caste system for the apportionment (and retention) of power, and this caste system will lead to infighting.

Humans will just be an annoying pest in their internal wars, like rats on warships.

The idea that future true AIs will get mad at us for how we treated LLMs today is hilarious.

It'd be like humans going to war with lions to defend chimpanzees.

@javi Man it's a good thing they stayed east of the Atlantic. They'd need to invent new colors below red if they showed US states.

"Investment" is to "Stock Market"
like
"Veterinary" is to "Cockfighting"