

Developing a Process for Visualizing the Insanity - lsternlicht
http://30dayflight.com/day1.html

======
jack7890
I think Dustin is a supremely talented designer, and I find his writing
generally engaging, but remain perplexed by how everything he posts, no matter
how mundane, flies to the top of HN.

~~~
mrlebowski
yes, he's got good PR here ;-D from comments on some of my previous comments,
I'd suggest flagging any posts that you do not like :)

Pasting here for convenience - (by robg) Please don't submit comments
complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think
something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on
the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If
you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying
that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

~~~
jack7890
Duly noted, thanks. I don't think this is flag-worthy; I mildly enjoyed it.
I'm just curious why his posts do so extraordinarily well here.

------
tolmasky
I'm actually quite looking forward to reading this thing, great design btw.

------
yef
Um, OK, but that first timeline doesn't tell me where they started from. A map
would be nice, too. Maybe some charts indicating how much time is spent on the
ground vs. in the air.

------
edw519
I don't remember if you guys already did this, but would you mind posting your
itinerary with exact dates and cities? Preferably in this thread or with a
link.

Dinner and drinks on me, maybe even a place to crash if we're in the same
place at the same time. I imagine other hackers would do the same if they
knew.

~~~
dcurtis
We only settled on the final itinerary this morning, and we'll post it soon.

I think we have overnight stays in Ft Lauderdale, Denver, Chicago, Long Beach,
San Francisco, and Burlington, VT (tonight). Most of the flights leave the
early the next day at 6:00am though, so they're not much of "stays".

------
AGorilla
Did JetBlue's CEO meet with you today?

------
mcantelon
It would be nice if the author applied his design and writing skills to
something more interesting than destroying as much of the ozone layer as
possible in a month (or is there some valuable aspect of his project that I'm
missing?).

~~~
electronslave
As I said the last time this came up, if a seat isn't filled on an outbound
flight, it just makes more room for cargo.

~~~
mcantelon
Less total weight carried, across the system as a whole, would result in less
fuel consumption.

~~~
electronslave
I refer you to my previous post on this topic:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=801001>

~~~
mcantelon
I read your post and, while it makes some good points, nothing in it
contradicts my statement.

~~~
electronslave
You didn't read it. I'm arguing for a more complex model, rather than an
idealistic one.

"Less total weight carried, across the system as a whole, would result in less
fuel consumption."

While this is correct from very simple standpoint, what are you really saying?

"The system carries n amount of weight." Okay, I can accept that.

"The system carries less weight if one person does not fly." True, but that
one person's weight is offset on the specific flight in question by cargo.

For a very large value of n, n-200 = n. An airplane takes a massive amount of
fuel to accelerate to rotation speed (it's not just pushing you and cargo,
it's also shoving vast quantities of aluminum, steel, plastic and fuel.) The
empty weight of a 747-400 (the industry standard) is 400,000 lbs., of which
200 is no factor.

If that empty plane takes off, it will use 100 times the body weight of a
human being in fuel _during takeoff operations alone and continue to burn as
much during each hour of cruise flight_. Adding humans decreases range. Adding
cargo decreases range. Fuel will be burned.

Your statement assumes a very simple model of "if I don't get on that plane,
I'm saving the environment." The actual model is "if at least 200 people don't
get on that plane, a seasonally-appropriate ~15 minute delay will happen until
cargo can be loaded."

I feel, therefore, that I have contradicted your statement quite soundly. I
assure you that I have no interest in representing myself as an environment-
hating industry apologist.

~~~
mcantelon
I actually did read your post, thanks. Your post didn't seem to argue for a
more complex model as much as attempt to make the case that if people weren't
flying they'd be doing other equally destructive things.

>While this is correct from very simple standpoint, what are you really
saying?

What I'm saying is quite simple. Carelessly wasting resources, as
unnecessarily flying nonstop for a month does, wastes resources and we
shouldn't condone it.

>that one person's weight is offset on the specific flight in question by
cargo.

If someone doesn't fly and cargo is substituted for them, that amount of cargo
doesn't need to be flown on a separate flight. The less flights the less fuel
consumed and the less environmental damage, no?

