Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight (flightradar24.com)
1544 points by eatmyshardz 55 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 398 comments

I find it just really endearing that at companies, regardless of how many other issues they have or the dysfunctions and bland corporate culture, there are people who keep the pride of purpose and "olden days / traditions" in their memory and do things like this. Or are able to call on institutional memory of something bygone, that reappears once in a while. (whether it's a big gesture like this or small cultural day-to-day manifestations).

You wonder how pockets of this survive when top management comes and goes, who sometimes only know the company as just some logo or another corporation to be managed, and when workforces go through rounds and rounds of potential layoffs where such knowledge and initiative is generally lost.

Maybe it also helps to be a company that has at least something to do with hardware that leaves a physical history :)

Every complex project lives and dies by a relatively small group of true believers.

From the outside, we don't know who they are, but sometimes we get a glimpse of their passion.

This goes for human organizations and communities in general. If you want something to persist and excel, find a way to empower the people who truly Give A Shit.

Pain ensues when you have two or more people/camps of people who Give A Shit but are in conflict with each other. Then often the organization just rips itself apart or collapses.

The tricky bit is how to empower people who Give A Shit while maintaining alignment.

Interesting, I'll make a note to keep my GAS levels around 80.

Seriously, I think the answer to this isn't about intensity of feeling (although 100% is never healthy for anything, ever).

It's about channelling the GAS into principles, tightening them up, and agreeing on what matters. Then putting that energy into being flexible about everything else.

Kinda agree. I like to raise GAS levels as high as possible but by balancing the fun, effort level and importance.

I think it's more that most people are basically trying their best and that includes managers and top brass. Sometimes we get a glimpse when that shines through from the whole group.

I don’t mean to be negative, but most people certainly don’t try their best. Many are only working for the paycheck and don’t attach their sense of success to their professional output.

I don't think "working for a paycheck" necessarily implies one is not trying his/her best. Also the sense of success may not even depend on "success at work". Being successful and trying their best is far more nuanced than usually made out to be.

This is one of the more excellent comments I’ve ever seen here. Thank you.

Agree. I've said for ~10 years now, that it seems the American Dream has transitioned from "Anything is possible as long as you work hard enough." to "Do as little as work possible to get the same paycheck." Something has definitely changed in the culture.

What could have possibly changed in the last several decades that might have affected someone's willingness to give their job there all?


Sorry for the sarcasm, but it is very frustrating to see people standing around wondering at this change as if it's a moral failing when people have been pointing out for decades that those at the top broke the social contract and that there would eventually be consequences.

The moral failing is definitely in how corporations are lead and how work is rewarded. I don't blame anyone for not being passionate about a job that barely pays a living wage. In fact, I think it's incredibly harmful for a country when work is not properly rewarded.

I wonder if the tide will ever turn? That it would become a competitive advantage to build enterprises with values other than maximizing the returns to their shareholders.

Companies no longer reward loyalty or working hard on the whole, so I'm surprised that you are surprised. Those at the top reap entirely outsized rewards, the company does stock buy-backs, and the workers get table scraps.

We're insulated somewhat from that in our industry, we're well compensated, but I don't blame others in other industries for responding to how companies focus their resources today.

I think majority of jobs are low wage with no future prospects, and quite a lot of jobs have bosses or—worse—shareholders taking away the profits for their own private climate devastating opulence. Why would you work hard for these people? Why would you do anything more than the absolute minimum?

I think this supposed American dream was only ever a ruse, a Hollywood propaganda. If it ever existed it only applied to a certain demographic and was never actually a possibility for majority of Americans.

In the past decades (since the late 70s at least) Hollywood has slowed down it’s propaganda machine in favor of more independent film making (or the propaganda has shifted elsewhere; mainly the military during this century), so the illusion of the American dream is slowly but surely wearing off. In the meantime our jobs suck just as much as before, possibly even more, and are paying even less.

> Why would you do anything more than the absolute minimum?

For personal satisfaction? You are going to be there anyway, you might as well do a good job.

I’m not saying to put in more hours than contracted, but those hours should be high quality (or as high as you can make them, under the circumstances).

I earn my paycheck and no more. When I work on my personal pet projects, that's where the passion and personal satisfaction is.

You want excellence? Treat me excellently and you'll get it.

Personal satisfaction, like exposure, is not legal tender.

While this is obviously true, the long term effects of a positive, growth mindset are more likely to have an effect on your net worth than if you cannot or will not take pride in working hard and doing the best job you possibly can.

Keep in mind that this "positive, growth mindset" means quitting your job for a better one if you're not going to get promoted in the job that you have. That, or starting your own business. Many companies have made it abundantly clear that there's no positive growth inside their company for ordinary workers. Only for the wallets of the managers and shareholders.

This reads like its from a questionable research paper funded by an HR group with the sole aim of gaslighting workers into working harder for less money. I’m not buying it.

It is certainly questionable research, but from the lived experience of a superannuated engineer (me!) not an HR group.

As for gaslighting? Well, my aim is indeed to make you work harder. Not only that, but for you to have more money not less. At all levels — our society, the sector in which we work, our businesses as a whole and each team in those businesses — your success has a positive effect on everyone else as well as on you and part of that success will come as “legal tender”.

The flip side is that if we all drag our heels, everyone is worse off. I have sadly met many people in my life who seem to want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.

(Your comment way up this thread talks about jobs with low wages with no future prospects. You make a good point and those jobs really are different — one is unlikely to innovate oneself to greater wealth as a coal miner. Lots of us here on HN don’t fall into this category of work though, and yet, alas, I see the mindset of the low pay / low prospects worker more and more in the tech sector.)

If your boss or—worse—your shareholders are making significant money from your work, and spending it on furthering the climate disaster (like most bosses of large companies do) then I would argue that, no, your work is actually making the world a worse place.

This wealth gap that keeps increasing is not good for anyone (except for bosses) and it is literally destroying our climate, even if it makes your personal net worth increase, that isn’t good enough if it increases your boss’ net worth 100x that.

Working smarter and for better companies/people is what got me more money, not working harder

Working smarter and for better companies also got me working harder. I simply work harder when I'm working for a company I care about, on a job I care about, when I feel appreciated and have the freedom to contribute in a way that works for me.

If you make me care less about the job and worry more about money, that's not going to help my productivity. If you want passionate and productive workers, you've got to give them something to be passionate about, but you also have to make sure they don't have to worry about money. If they're thinking about how they'll make rent or how they're going to pay for some unavoidable expenses, they're not thinking about how to solve an interesting problem for you.

Im trying to understand why you made these points, I think you misunderstood what you replied to.

He is saying you cant buy personal satisfaction, not that it has no effect on money earned.

PS - Maybe Im confused, can someone correct me?

This is not correct for a lot of jobs. For people with white-collar 'careers', maybe. But not for many other people.

If the tasks or people suck, giving shit is tiresome. Way better to do half assed job and spare some mental energy to use on your terms in the evening.

No that's not how it works unfortunately. You are supposed to do overtime and answer emails on your weekends. Fuck that.

American Dream made sense when one person in the family worked for corporations. When everyone flooded the labor market, and automation made workers much more productive, wages got depressed. Now the American dream is propaganda for getting 30 year mortgages from banks and working to pay off the money you rented.

Sorry but this sort of drive is a two way street. If the company's not going to promote me and will drop me as soon as they've burned me out, I'm most definitely not going to "give my all" to the company.

The company needs me, I don't need them for my self gratification. I just need a paycheck.

MBAs instead of promote-from-within. Bringing along egotistical bean-counter superiority with typically vastly inferior performance. Seeing this trend in big tech has me very bearish - the non-tech MBAs just can't execute on long-term big bets that require the deep understanding/cross-cutting coordination that comes with career insiders.

Is the problem of outside MBAs their lack of deep understanding? Others here have argued that the promotion of outsiders erodes loyalty and passion of the workforce towards their jobs.

I could imagine good outsiders who have the skills for long-term big bets are quite common. But then the erosion of the community inside the company could still foil such bets.

As an aside, this alternative narrative seems more palatable to MBAs then your version. Hence it might be more easily accepted.

Actually, MBA schools actively teach people to be shitty to their employees and instill a sense of superiority. It's a scheme of sorts.

Executives from corporate America led by people like Welch treated workers like cogs, which eventually taught employees to treat employers transactionally.

For sure. Whatever happened to hired guns putting their hearts and souls into maximizing profits for the shareholders? I mean, not to be negative or anything.

I know a Japanese expat who moved from America to Europe because he didn't want to work himself to death. There is more to life than career and money. Sure he earns less now but he actually has the opportunity to spend it!

It happens with a lot of people who get burned out and just want to put their kids through college. There's nothing inherently wrong with that outlook, and those people can do good work keeping the lights on. But if you're at all driven or ambitious, it can be seriously frustrating to work with (or especially for) someone like this.

I find it highly unlikely that any manager would have anything to do with easter eggs.

i highly doubt an IC could make something like this happen without approval from somebody. It would be a huge risk.

Also relating to easter eggs, anecdotally I think there are far fewer of them in software these days for just that reason: when a developer puts in an easter egg, it's hard to prove categorically that its addition wouldn't have some unintended effect, and possibly very embarrassing to the company if a major issue was traced back to some joke added by a developer for lulz. Uncomfortable questions would be asked. Imagine if adding an easter egg to Windows ended up leading to the grounding of all flights, or caused a life support system to behave improperly. etc.

I know MS specifically banned easter eggs a long time ago on these grounds, I think it's a fireable offense but could be wrong.

> i highly doubt an IC could make something like this happen without approval from somebody. It would be a huge risk.

I'd bet at least beer money that this was some "IC" career 747 guy (or bunch of guys) who organised, planned, and authorised this without actual authority, because he was "a 747 guy" and he tendered his retirement 3 months ago and today was his last day. And a delivery pilot who was either in on it or was prepared to claim plausible deniability and that he was just following the autopilots pre-planned route, which he assumed was fully authorised.

What's the huge risk? They're gonna fire him???

Just because you don’t like your manager(s) doesn’t mean we’re all bad :)

My manager sends me videos of particularly challenging video game things he's accomplished. And links to fun games. Managers are people, too; there's plenty of good ones.

Not that you're bad ... you just love Jira tickets and spreadsheets and don't want to be accountable to anything that could come back and bight you.

No I don't. Like I said, just because your manager is like that does not mean that we all are, and it's kind of childish to think that way.

You also spelled 'bite' wrong.

Don't project your manager(s) habits onto others, please.

You think a pilot took an unnecessarily longer route in a clients purchased plane without senior manager buy-in?

The pilot just took off in Seattle, engaged autopilot, and sat back watching for warning lights until it was time to land.

I'll bet he knew exactly what was going on, because the perpetrator clued them in, and made sure they had suitable ass covering paperwork to show they were just flying the flight as per the delivered flight plan.

There may have been, maybe even probably was, a middling-senior manager involved here, but he was a "747 guy" as well, and today was his last day before retirement as well. And I'd guess all the "747 guys" have been there long enough to know exactly how to bury this paper trail, and possibly one guy who's prepared to "take the fall" if a board member or the customer bursts a coronary artery and demands a full forensic blame storm investigation - "Oh yeah, Bob signed off on that. He's got cancer, probably only a few weeks left, he was so happy to see the last one ever built fly, he started on the tools building them in the 80s. Last I heard he'd just sold up everything and spent his entire life savings paying off all his kids and grandkids houses and college loans. What a guy, huh?"

(I aspire to be Bob.)

How true is this? In civilizations past such as the Romans you could cut off the heads like the emperor and it would be unchanged for millions. In china when the communists defeated the Manchus, some villagers were amazed these people defeated what they thought was the Ming dynasty.

Khomeini was killed, Trump isn't president anymore and Iran's military and the right haven't died. In tech, Bell Labs is 'demonopolized' yet it's parts have become stronger.

I disagree that the it dies with true believers. It decays and reforms and even gets stronger.

Khomeini was killed is news to me. It's been a long time and I don't remember the details so I checked Wikipedia. It seems he died by hearth attack in hospital at age 89.


when did the communists defeat the manchus? do you mean the KMT..?

Why do you think top management isn't part of this? Many times it's top management itself that makes sure these traditions continue. Maintaining company culture is something incredibly important to a lot of executives, at certain companies at least.

And judging from the press, this was a highly coordinated event including thousands of spectators and John Travolta. [1]

Top management can love having fun and maintaining traditions too. They're people too.

[1] https://thepointsguy.com/news/boeing-747-farewell-celebratio...

> Why do you think top management isn't part of this? Many times it's top management itself that makes sure these traditions continue. Maintaining company culture is something incredibly important to a lot of executives, at certain companies at least.

It sure as hell wasn't the "out source the 737 Max 8 avionics software to some low cost of living $8/hr contractors" beancounter management.

Nor the "lets make the secondary angle of attack sensor part of the 'premium package' and blame the cheapskate customers when their planes crash" MBA bro management.

And it definitely wasn't the "Lets put 'undue pressure' on our ODA-certified staff and make them lie to the FAA about the MAX8 program" assholes either.

But maybe you're right, maybe it's not an entire barrel of bad apples yet...

Or the let's-move-the-historical-headquarters-to-Chicago top management, so that the engineers wouldn't come and bother them.

I basically wear zero visible labels on my clothes because why would I wear advertising? I own a t-shirt with 747 on it and a picture. It's one of the great pieces of human engineering. Many of us, even those who have never had anything to do with it beyond seeing one in the sky and occasionally riding on one love it like any other great work of creation.

There would be people who think like that who joined boeing in the past couple of years...

Nice. I love it. It's like the trendy NASA shirts you see. Now there's a logo to flaunt regardless of the reason.

https://aviationsourcenews.com/breaking/atlas-air-to-fly-spe... The ceremony is prepared by CEO himself in this case.

This should be the top comment, and the title should probably be set to "Planned ceremonial flight path of last 747 delivery path".

There a now hundreds of comments arguing about how this "Easter egg" got pulled off, when it is in fact nothing else than a well organized publicity stunt (typical HN discussion, though, I suppose ? Fontenelle, golden teeth, etc..)

Good for the 747 folks, though, it's always nice to get some form of recognition.

And good luck to all the people trying to make planes fly with less GHG emissions - hopefully they get a ceremony, too, someday.

As this involved an extra hour(?) of flight time, it cost thousands of dollars. It also required filing a particular flight plan, and probably coordination between Boeing and Atlas. So it seems safe to say that it required approval at a pretty high level. And given everything else that happened surrounding the delivery, that doesn't seem strange at all.


The drawing started at 16:50 UTC and ended at 19:30 UTC, so 2 hours and 40 minutes of the 6 hours and 20 minutes long flight.

In any case, this most likely required approval from the FAA, but the cost per se should be neglectable, considering that they have been produced since 1970s.

It didn’t require approval from the FAA as the flight plan was filed in class G (uncontrolled) airspace below 14,000 feet.

Might have been a bit of a trip to fly in your Cessna and see a 747 flying down there though.

You're right, thank you for sharing that fact.

I revisited the flight data and if flies below 13,000 ft until it finished the drawing. Then it rose to 41,000 ft and increased the speed from ~200 knots to somewhat over 500.

It blows my mind to think that an 747 is allowed to use the uncontrolled airspace as if it were a Cessna.

Ah! This explains the 2:40 time for the drawing. Just eyeballing it, I guesstimated an hour, but I was assuming a constant flight speed. So if it was flying at ~200 for the drawing and ~500 otherwise, that would account for it. Thanks!

Thanks for the accurate time!

"The 747 burns about a gallon per second" -- so in 2:40 they burned almost 10,000 gallons of fuel, or over $20K.

"thousands of dollars" may seem like a lot to an individual, but to a company like Boeing, it's tiny. They probably spend far more on explicit advertising than this.

What's cool is that aviation can be so stifling at times with training, rules, regulations, etc, that it seems that certain very cool traditions are either set in stone, or born and survive relatively intact.

ADSB reporting, which powers these flight tracking sites that are available to the public, is (relatively speaking) a very new thing to aviation and the general public. And the fact that these maneuvers are absolutely fantastic training and aviation problem solving and you've got the perfect storm for a newly born tradition that will continue to survive and evolve.

You don’t think this is an autopilot course?

It is 100% an auto pilot flown course.

(The only real alternative option is that it's spoofed ADS-B transmissions, which is way way more likely to mean jail time for whoever was involved than a few extra tons of jetfuel and an un-management-authorised mission plan uploaded to the nav hardware would result in...)

(It shows on other ADS-B tracking sites, so it isn't just some FlightRadar dude having fun or getting a kickback.)

(Actually, there's a _very small_ possibility it was a large enough group of pissed of ADSBExchange feeders who all collaborated to use their gear to send spoofed data to the various flight tracking services? When some guy sells out an "open community" for $20mil, trolling the entire industry isn't a super surprising result...)

With there being no obvious deviations from the pattern there’s no doubt it was done on autopilot. That said, a skilled pilot who wanted to deal with the nuisance of hand flying that would get pretty close just by following the flight director (But at that point you’re just manually moving the yoke on behalf of the autopilot, given the FD is essentially just showing you what the autopilot wants to do).

Is this tradition even new? Drawing things in the sky seems to be a well established aviation tradition.

> Drawing things in the sky seems to be a well established aviation tradition

Not really... This level of high-precision and publicly-available flight tracking is pretty new.

This particular level and visibility of sky writing is new, but "drawing things in the sky" dates back to the 1920s or so. That sort of skywriting uses oil to cause the airplane to leave a trail of white smoke, visible against the blue background of the sky.

The precision we see in this route is fairly new, but, especially on proving flights for new aircraft, which needed hours and hours of flight time and would take off and land at the same airport, and even before the public could see it on a website, filing flight plans that contained (much cruder) drawings of "747" or otherwise certainly exist.

I'd say this is a very different type of drawing, because you only see it on a tracker. Someone watching in real live from the ground wouldn't see the pattern, because I don't think jet trails stay in the air for two hours.

This seems more like people using run/cycle trackers to make drawings on a map. (Strava Art)

Jet trails stay in the sky all the day long with the right meteo conditions. They just become wider and look like long clouds. Check the picture at https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/typ...

Also this paper https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/7/12/169

We can only see it on a tracker. My claim is that sort of flight route drawing predates modern tracking on the Internet by decades. GPS was released to the public in the 1980's.

Drawing stuff on a map with a GPS track is a rather beaten path in the world of Strava and similar [0]. Not being bound to the road network graph just makes it easier. I don't want to think about the fuel burned for this stunt, but if I were in some position that is required to sign off that flight path I'd sure congratulate whoever came up with this. Wouldn't even be all surprised if tomorrow some Airbus ferry flight would respond in the same medium with a respectful salute to the old lady.

([0] but relative to anything that would be considered a tradition in aviation, the entire concept of GPS is rather newfangled, despite it's surprising age, I'm not disagreeing)

I don't think this uses GPS, at least not directly. This data comes from ADS-B and radar. ADS-B involves the plane itself broadcasting where it (thinks it) is. That may come from GPS onboard but is probably more sophisticated than that in a modern 747.

The ADS-B out data is fed from the aircraft’s ADIRU (air data inertial reference unit), which, yes, just uses GPS unless that fails for some reason. There’s a fallback based on accelerometers and laser gyros to provide shockingly accurate positioning should such a failure occur, but it does lose some accuracy (enough that you can still fly autopilot on it for an approach at max range, but it’ll be drifting by some number of meters) over long flights before it needs to be reset from GPS data on the ground.

On a much smaller scale, it has been around for a long time:


I don’t think it is. Boeing has been doing it for years. They did it in 2014 for sure and that wasn’t new. That was nearly a decade ago.

Not at this extent, and the ability for the general public to be aware of it.

Skywriting seems visible to me? This is just an evolution of the same idea. This is a Looney Toons gimmick.

> You wonder how pockets of this survive when top management comes and goes, who sometimes only know the company as just some logo or another corporation to be managed

This makes me so sad, all of our traditions which make companies unique will actually be eroded away by market forces. No wonder no one stays at a workplace anymore.

The market force putting a stop to this is legal liability that can arise from undocumented or unauthorized behaviour. That's more an issue of an overly-litigious society.

I’m sure culture/traditions play a role in employee retention, but it feels like “the 20-year tenure company man/woman” of the 90’s was likely driven by less optionality in the job market compared to today, and also fewer benefits to staying with a company long-term (e.g. no more pensions, unlimited vacation for both new and old employees, etc).

Boeing still needs pilots. They're a sentimental, capable, and stubborn bunch.

Heh, the last time two Marine aviators drew a suitable shape often doodled throughout the Corps[1] it was not as well appreciated! Though they were certainly keeping pride of purpose alive.

1. https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/11/marine-pilots-investigated-fo...

I read your perspectives on intellectual loneliness and wondered round for an embarrassing period (this is my first encounter with this site… I’m also a dinosaur) in an effort to thank you. It did a great deal for me, not because I’m a genius, not that I have a sob story, not like some genuinely have. I realised young that it was strange to ask why it was so important to seemingly everyone else that this ball, this fecking spherical sack of air, went over there. Fame fortune and sex if I was the cause of it resulting to be ‘over there’. Hahaha I didn’t hate it, it was fine. Still not 100 convinced that people can love it as much as they say they do though. Other authors are available :) As I say though. Thank you for spending the/your time. It’s made a difference

> there are people who keep the pride of purpose and "olden days / traditions" in their memory and do things like this.

My inner cynic cannot ignore the fact that this was a planned flight, with several layers of approvals, not something a small group of enthusiasts did as an homage to the olden days. I bet this is a PR stunt and nothing else. Yes, I am very fun at parties.

Your inner cynic might be warmed with a reread this classic anecdote, as a reminder that even the glossy PR-ified output of a huge corporation can be the work of a few passionate individuals with human motivations:


Even with multiple approval. One has to started this, with everyone in the approval chain to agree this homage is worthwhile to do.

Interesting narrative - all we need is Bruce Willis at the controls and we’re gold ;)

I’m sure it was all planned and coordinated with their marketing team. After all, they need to figure out important things like how much fuel, time to arrival, etc.


This is why people on the ground deserve more respect (and yes, pay) than they get.

. o O { also, the ones in the sky }

While I certainly appreciate the passion and artistry to design and fly a path like that, I also wonder if it's not incredibly wasteful to do that with a kerosine-burning 747.

Of course, it is. And you don't wonder; you know that ;)

But it is also deeply human. Humans are designing this aeroplane and building this aeroplane. It's a piece of human history and a significant one in recent times.

So it is well worth ignoring efficiency and commemorating it for the sake of the humans involved. After all, our entire human existence is incredibly wasteful.

I'm sure someone will get fired over this.

Why? It was even the scheduled flight plan. https://twitter.com/FlyingPhotog/status/1620605523094818819?

Screenshot: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmcjrYXR934QZqBuMHioRdcZEmo...

On small displays this is otherwise obstructed by a cookie popup that offers only an “accept all” button. What’s even the point of the popup then?

> What’s even the point of the popup then?

If you're in the EU you'll see a "Reject All" option. To confirm this, set a breakpoint in their JS, change your country to an EU one, and the option to "Reject All" cookies appears: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/09wcuy4yh3qqoaw/reject_a...

Here's a screenshot of where I set the breakpoint and changed my country to France: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ju41dpj14pn4onh/bp.png

They chose to spend developer time on that rather than treat their users well.


This is bad but I’ve seen worse. One of the bigger networks has a ~20second “processing” stage when you opt out of these, as a punishment for not clicking “accept” (which works instantly)


They chose adhering to the legal requirements over the users, putting them right in the middle of the pack of literally all websites and companies run by more than an individual. You don't have to continue on to their site if you don't wish to.

They need the ad money to run the website and the better analytics to know how to improve it. It’s not a mystery.

Too bad I am from EU, but don't see the reject all button anyway...

You can also view it on Flightaware, which doesn't have the popup: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI747/history/20230201/...

Make sure to choose “yes” to see the Easter egg

> Live flight not found

> The flight with callsign GTI747 is currently not tracked by Flightradar24. It's either out of coverage or has already landed.

> Do you want to see the flight history of this aircraft?

> [ ] No, close pop-up > [X] Yes, show aircraft history

It opened the app for me, but the app doesn’t offer this option, so it just fails. Great.

The app offered this option for me. Are you on the latest version?

Thank you, I couldn’t see the interesting part due to zoom/number of other planes etc.

> What’s even the point of the popup then?

Complying with idiotic bureaucratic regulations. Nobody wants to be popping that thing up, but if they don't, they can get reamed by the EU.

They could just... not use tracking cookies. Then no banner is required. The real idiocy is every website wanting to hoover up data.

The popup is about any cookies, right?

Cookies are a basic building blocks of websites. If you login to a legit website, there's a cookie in your browser for that.

> The popup is about any cookies, right?

The popup is, yes. But the legislation they are pretending to be compliant with isn't.

For basic session-level cookies that are essential to the operation of some sites, no legislation requires consent. The issues are third party tracking, long term use stalking, etc. But those that want to stalk you want you to believe that the legislation is against even session maintenance & similar cookies as well so you'll be against the legislation and not them. And that is apparently working on you and some others commenting in this thread.

Got it, those are good points. Thanks.

Unfortunately it's not always reasonably possible to convince the client / legal team that a cookie banner is not needed in such case and the decision makers would rather be sure than care about the UX. Or so I heard.

This is understandable, though it shows a lack of legal understanding which could be worrying from a legal team, as there was a lot of scare-mongering when cookie-and-other-tracking legislation was a significant talking point.

Also, largely due to the same anti-anti-tracking voices making spurious claims of what would happen, some put the warning up not because they think they need to, but to avoid having to argue that they don't need to if a complaint is made.

It might be just them refusing to look into it and covering their asses, because they don't care if there is an unnecessary cookie banner.

But to be fair the stories I have heard were something along the lines of: a freelancer making a website for a local restaurant and being unable to convince the restaurant owner, because the owner's nephew said that the cookie banner must be there.

No, login cookies are specifically exempt.

github doesn't require such consent?

And you can just not use the website. Then no data is hoovered. I actually think this is probably the best system. It's double opt-in. If you both commit to your sides, you both sign the deal and get what you want. If neither of you wants to do it, you can both just not sign the deal.

The trouble is that popups like this don’t even comply with the relevant legislation. (Which is the ePrivacy Directive after the 2009 amendment, though people largely ignored this part of it until the advent of the GDPR which came into force in 2018. Simplified, ePD says “most cookies must be opt-in”.)

If anything, putting such wildly non-compliant popups should make you more liable to punishment, because it undermines an argument of ignorance.

I suspect if you access the site from an EU IP address you’ll see an option besides “Accept All”. The layout [0] even seems to leave room for where this other button might be.

edit: looking at the code I even see references to a “Reject All” button as well as an XHR request to a geolocation endpoint.

edit2: I set a breakpoint in their code and changed by country to "FR" and sure enough, I now see a "Reject All" button! Screenshot: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/09wcuy4yh3qqoaw/reject_a...

[0]: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/vw2khgjnyrnqucb/f

I walked away from the site on first visit due to "accept all" being the only option. Nipped back just to check after seeing your post while checking replies to my earlier comment, and wondering if the site is deliberately treating the UK differently. It turns out only-accept-all is the default and if the geolocation lookup fails (apparently that service is blocked by my pihole, it works if on mobile without home VPN) no reject option is present.

A bit of bad design there, not failing safe, if there intention is to be compliant with stricter laws, because a failure in an external dependency makes the site less compliant.

so apparently they only care about your privacy if you are a citizen of the EU?

And that just brings up the question again: why show the popup to non-EU viewers if the only option is to accept the cookies. It isn't even effective as a form of protest because those viewers have even less influence over EU regulations than EU citizens.

> so apparently they only care about your privacy if you are a citizen of the EU?

No, they care about being minimally compliant and laws vary.

A number of places have legislation that just says "users much opt in" but the EU has legislation that says "users must opt-in, but cannot be forced to opt-in by there being no opt-out option".

They don't care about your privacy at all, no matter where you are, if any claim otherwise is made it is a lie.

I was being sarcastic. I was referring to the fact that the on the EU dialog it said "we care about your privacy", but in the dialog I got in the US it didn't. And was thus implying that despite their claim, they do not care about anyone's privacy.

If these silly laws were enforced, you'd have to shut down the whole Internet anyway.

> If these silly laws were enforced, you'd have to shut down the whole Internet anyway.

No, the tracking across sites will stop. None of those "silly" laws prohibit the use of e.g. session cookies.

I recently realized you can bypass cookie auth requests by toggling reader. Led me to wonder what the EU plans on doing to enforce compliance if JavaScript isn’t enabled, for example. Kind of makes the legal obligations of sites more or less impossible to fulfill under some limited circumstances.

If JavaScript is disabled, most of the offending cookies are not loaded. Session cookies are usually fine wrt GDPR.

I actually left the page and came back in private mode, so I am thankful they asked.

There has never been a point to cookie popups, as with most things resulting from technically-illiterate politicians trying to help with technology matters.

Their ideas are at best slightly lower-quality than the results of letting my 2-year-old wash the windows.

Thanks. It wasn't showing anything for me at all, just a bunch of icons of planes. Much appreciated.

The point is that you won't access the info you came for without shoveling all the tracking malware up your cookie storage.

SOS would’ve been a funny prank

Makes me think of the famous "707 Barrel Roll" story from its initial testing: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/60-years-ago-the-f...

“You know that. Now we know that. But just don’t do it anymore.”

Edit: forgot the barrel roll was on a 707 - not a 747

there's film of Tex Johnston's Dash-80 barrel roll https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk

many years later, Boeing Chief Test Pilot John Cashman stated that just before he piloted the maiden flight of the Boeing 777 on Jun. 12, 1994, his last instructions from then Boeing President Phil Condit were “No rolls”. -- anecdote from https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-tex-johnston-barre...

I wonder why "the suits" at Boeing are so against the barrel rolls? The pilots all agree it's not that big a deal, not dangerous, and anybody watching is going to love it.

this article https://www.straightdope.com/21341407/is-it-possible-to-loop... says that the bigger the plane, the more dangerous because it will roll more slowly, and during parts of the roll particularly 90 degrees off "flat" there is no lift and you're going to be falling.

I'm reminded of the tragic crash of a B-52 illustrating a similar circumstance, and this was the pilot's last flight before retiring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6io8Tjv7xk

A barrel roll is one thing to perform in a transport category jet, it is a ~1G maneuver when performed correctly. A loop is altogether different. My good friend Bernardo Malfitano, https://www.understandingairplanes.com/Bernardo-Malfitano.ht... , when he worked as a Structural Methods & Allowables engineer at Boeing, was also an aerobatics pilot on the side and put on a fantastic brown-bag lunch presentation entitled "Can you loop a 747?" where he demonstrated how he calculated the weight, altitude, airspeed, and configuration points to theoretically loop a 747 while staying within the certified load limits, then did a stepwise simulation of the results. It would theoretically be possible, but it would be very close to the limit of the airplane's capabilities.

Found it - "Aerobatic Capabilities of “Marginally Aerobatic” Airplanes" - scroll down to "The Physics of Aerobatics" and click "Paper", toward the end there is a detailed summary of how a transport jet could just barely do a very ugly loop. https://www.understandingairplanes.com/online.html

“Marginally Aerobatic”

Gotta love the understatement there.

§ 91.303 Aerobatic flight. No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight - (a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement; (b) Over an open air assembly of persons; (c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport; (d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway; (e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or (f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles. For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

The Dash-80 roll was a 1-G maneuver that didn't strain the airframe at all. Local legend says that single barrel roll was enough to convince an airline industry skeptical of jet aircraft to open their checkbooks. Boeing -- in the person of Tex Johnston -- changed the world that day.

The only thing I can think is that it looks dangerous to casual observers, and that's the furthest thing Boeing and the airlines that purchase from them want potential passengers thinking.

Based on my “flight” experience in MSFS and various other games, you have to start high enough to complete a barrel roll, and you have to have good control surface authority that allows such deep rolls. At some scale it becomes hard to start high enough and finish it quick enough.

It’s not a big deal in a clean F-15C to start a barrel roll, change minds, and add a full right deflection for 1s to recover to a level flight. But in a larger and non-manauver-oriented planes like a 747, you might find out that the aircraft under present circumstances cannot command more pitch or roll rates to transition from a high-speed inverted descent to a desired positive climb situation before the altimeter indication would reach zero or below. The latter was not so fun.

Overall, I think it’s reasonable that “the suits” were not embracing it. The test pilots made their point, the world witnessed it, any further attempts weren’t strictly necessary, and frankly would have been scary.

Thank you for sharing this, I had never seen it even though I knew the story. I love how excited Tex is describing the 707. "We had an airplane that was going to shrink the world by a factor of two." the whole idea drips with 1950s techno-optimism.

The Fairchild B-52 crash isn't really comparable to the 707 roll. That was at a much lower altitude and a far more aggressive maneuver.

Tex Johnston's first flight was in 1925 with the age of 11 on a "barnstormer". At the time where the first flight regulation appeared in the US.

Back then "flight acrobatics" beside showing off the skills of a pilot was the art of "selling" planes/flying and making it popular after all the "Jennies" were sold off (and the pilots laid off) by the government after WWI[0] for essentially pennies: about $200 (~$4.000); production cost initially at $5.000 (~$100.000). Civil aviation "mass-adopted".

So, by selling a 707 with a barrel roll is as old school as it gets.


Even if intellectually you know it's totally safe, it's still something the plane was not explicitly designed to do and literally will never be used for again. I can understand the "oh my god what are you doing" reaction feeling a lot stronger than "I guess he must know what he's doing".

Thank you - I had never seen it. This is great.

That very plane is on display at the Udvar-Hazy center of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, at Dulles airport. Plane nerds MUST go there!! Incredible place.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_F._Udvar-Hazy_Center

Agreed, it's the best museum in the DC area.

Should note that's a 707 that Tex Johnston rolled, not a 747. I'm not aware of any barrel rolls performed in a 747.

It wasn't even a 707, it was a prototype model 367-80.

There were some unusually significant structural differences between the prototype dash 80 and production 707's, for example:

> The 132 in (3,400 mm) wide fuselage of the Dash 80 was large enough for four-abreast (two-plus-two) seating like the Stratocruiser. Answering customers' demands and under Douglas competition, Boeing soon realized this would not provide a viable payload, so it widened the fuselage to 144 in (3,660 mm) to allow five-abreast seating and use of the KC-135's tooling.



It's in the wikipedia article, but just want to call something out: That particular airframe 367-80 is in the Air and Space Udvar-Hazy museum at Dulles. It is gorgeous.

The 747s first airframe is at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, and you can _go inside it_. https://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/boeing-747-121

Those two pages disagree. Your quote is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_367-80 has "The Dash 80 fuselage was wide enough at 132 inches (335 cm) for five-abreast seating; two on one side of the aisle and three on the other. The fuselage diameter for the production KC-135 was widened to 144 inches (366 cm) and Boeing originally hoped to build the 707 fuselage with that width. By the time the Boeing company committed to production, the decision had been made to design the production model 707 as a six-abreast design"

They added 26 centimeters. Just barely enough to fit another person.

Seriously, what were they planning to transport? Pixies?

The aisle width and/or chair clearance probably changed as well. Indeed, if only 26 cm was required to add another seat to each row, there must have been substantial wasted space with four-abreast seating.

FTA: "In his Boeing office, he [Tex] hung a sign that proclaimed, 'One test is worth a thousand opinions.'"

I need that sign. ha

Oh good note lol! I misremembered

youtube video of the barrel roll https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE

Here is the story behind the flight and drawing in the sky via flight path https://aviationsourcenews.com/breaking/atlas-air-to-fly-spe...

> "She’s a darn good-looking airplane… An incredible honor for me"

don't all 747's look the same by definition? lol

thank you... i was wondering why they did this.

It took them 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete the easter egg

More cynically: Roughly 2.4 tons of fuel, equating to 16.8 tons of CO2 emissions.

That's equal to the average CO2 emission of one US citizen per year. I don't think this is particularly noteworthy. There is a cost to this celebration, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.


Yeah, this can't be some prank by a renegade flight crew, it can only be a farewell celebration act with a kick-off meeting, a budget and a dozen people who signed off. But I'm not criticising, by that measure we'd have to question any resource expenditure that exceeds the bare minimum for sustaining life.

Well this admittedly cool looking stunt represents more than 5 persons worth of annual sustainable co2 budget (estimated at 3T/year), so I‘d say it’s a smidgeon above the „bare minimum for sustaining life”.

That's why you don't do stuff like this for each and every subvariant. This is a once in half a century occasion, it absolutely pales in comparison to the amount of fuel the type has burned for trade show visits, photo opportunities and numerous other nonessentials. Arguably there isn't a single use case for jet aviation that isn't far out of the range of sustainable co2 budget.

Fun is a good thing to spend some of our CO2 emissions budget on. We need fun. A joyless society isn't worth saving.

Exactly. It's why I have a truck, actually. Sure, I could drive an electric Nissan Leaf, but come on. Is that life worth living?

Sure, if that is important to you. You are welcome to make sacrifices elsewhere. We will need to make sure you make them though, probably by taxing your petrol through the roof.

You’re welcome to try.

Both Boeing and I will win.

Win what?

The tax fight thing. He’s not going to get gas taxes increased. Anyone who tried would be wrecked in elections. No one gives a damn about “the climate” dude. We’ve got fun to have. And the power to keep that fun cheap.

Sure. Nothing will change unless enough people want it to change. And you are only able to reason with the reasonable. And maybe petrol taxes are not looked on favorably by the reasonable in your region, so you need a different method of fairly distributing costs. But berating people for wanting fun things is not a great way of getting people to see reason.

I, personally, don't believe this easter egg provides any valuable joy.

I enjoyed it.

some fun is more expensive than others. That's ~2.24 years of energy usage by the average US household

And a sendoff to the hard work of tens of thousands or more people.

Oh. No.

That’s a fair sentiment, but in this particular case the portion of society that will be aware that this even happened, much let get joy from it, is a rounding error above none of society.

And 17 tons of CO2 is a rounding error above none of society's total emissions -- the US alone is around 5 billion tons per year.

I was thinking along those lines as well, but:

1. For context, this was the final delivery flight of a 747, ever. It's a pretty momentous occasion.

2. If we're going to criticize something like this, then we probably should be criticizing a lot more about the waste in our own lives. Everyone generates a lot of unnecessary waste, even if we don't think about or consciously acknowledge it.

Arguably, the stunt is a symbol. Critizing it for also being a symbol for the inconsiderate waste of co2 budget is fair.

…I mean, building a 747 in 2023 is really not a reasonable thing to do given our remaining co2 budget, even if some techies feel sentimental about that plane.

I have no clue what I'm talking about but this piqued my interest. If I ask WolframAlpha:

   Q:how many carbon molecules in 2.4 tons
   A: 1.092×10^29 molecules
X molecules of pure carbon carbon would theoretically require 2X molecules of oxygen to turn into CO2

   Q: how much does (10^29)*2 molecules of oxygen weight in us tons
   A: 5.827 tons
So 2.4 tons of Carbon + 5.827 tons of Oxygen = 8.227 tons of CO2? Maybe? What am I missing to have 2.4 tons of fuel turn into 16.8 tons of CO2 emissions? I'm not doubting it, and I'm sure it's WAY more complicated than above, but just genuinely curious!*

Kerosene(jet fuel) has between 6 and 20 carbon atoms per molecule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Properties_and_grades

Have fun with the math!

Hm, does that change anything? Atoms per molecule doesn’t seem important when we’re talking about the total weight. If anything jet fuel isn’t pure carbon so the math works out to create less CO2 than I calculated?

I don't think the number of atoms directly matters. However, the amount of energy that is released when kerosene burns has a _small_ impact. Because that energy was contributing to the mass of the kerosene (E=mc^2). But, that difference in mass will be tiny. Far surpassed by the mass of the non-carbon atoms in kerosene.

You also missed the carbon monoxide and water vapor that would be produced. Along with nitric and sulfur oxides. So it’s probably not as bad.

No need to ask WolframAlpha; you can do those computations yourself very easily.

Avogadro's number is the conversion factor between grams and "atomic mass units", 6.023e+23†.

1.102e-6 is the conversion factor between grams and tons.

The atomic weight of carbon is 12.01 amu.

So 2.4 tons of pure carbon should contain 1.312e+30 atoms of carbon. The concept of a "carbon molecule" is not well defined; theoretically you could arrange all of these into one big diamond, or a bunch of graphite, or whatever.

The atomic weight of oxygen is 16.00 amu. If you're making carbon dioxide, every 12.01 units of carbon mass will correspond to 32.00 units of oxygen mass, so 2.4 tons of carbon would require 2.4 * (32.00/12.01) = 6.4 tons of oxygen.

There are a few comments we can make:

- "What you're missing" appears to be that the emissions are described as "equivalent to" a certain amount of carbon dioxide by some metric, not as actually containing that much carbon dioxide.

- Wolfram Alpha, at first glance, does not appear to be capable of answering your question correctly, but it's also in the right ballpark. Something is up.

- Could be that your question is posed too poorly to get a good response.

- Could be that the mass of a carbon dioxide molecule is greater than the sum of the masses of the one carbon and two oxygen atoms that it contains. I am told that in fact these two quantities are not equal - there is energy in the molecular bonds which ultimately equates to mass - but I don't know whether the molecule or the independent atoms should be heavier, and I feel sure that, if it's the molecule that's heavier, it is not heavier by a factor of 12, which is what the WolframAlpha answer requires.

- Your second question, "how much does 2e+29 molecules of oxygen weigh in US tons", is perfectly well defined, although it is incorrect given your goals. One molecule of oxygen contains two oxygen atoms, so you only need one molecule of oxygen per carbon atom to make carbon dioxide.

But WolframAlpha should have been able to answer this one unambiguously, and it couldn't. The correct result:

2e+29 molecule_O × 2 atom_O/molecule_O × 16.00 amu/atom_O ÷ 6.022e+23 amu/g × 1.102e-6 g/ton_US = 11.71 US tons

Something went very wrong in the WolframAlpha answer. Mostly it seems to have mistaken molecules for atoms, but I can't explain the difference between 5.855 and 5.827. On the other hand, that difference is small enough that if you said it was the effect of the "mass" of the molecular bonds, I wouldn't just dismiss the idea out of hand.

A larger lesson here might be that just because an automated system (or a human!) claims that it understands you, that doesn't mean it actually does.

† I just checked wikipedia and they have 6.022e+23. This doesn't make a significant difference to this calculation, so I'll ignore it.

This was a fantastic answer, thank you!

Yes. I agree. But it's a joke compared to what happened in Europe during the pandemic [0], when thousands of empty flights happened to secure their airlines landings slots. This could have been a checkmark in an Excel-sheet and did by far not draw the attention and ire of the public it should have last year.

[0] https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-hea...

I think you misplaced a decimal point on that fuel tonnage, they probably burned around 27 tons of fuel for that pattern.

If my own napkin math and google searching is correct, the daily worldwide consumption of jet fuel is (in very round numbers) a million tons a day. A bit less than the total daily consumption of gasoline in the US.

You're absolutely right. I wish I could edit my post, but I'm too late!

Do you also track the CO2 consumption of all the guys who want to save the environment by going with private jets to Davos?

The only thing these people want to save is their class privilege, just so we're clear...

I wish to make a climate confession. I drove to the beach yesterday for recreation despite it not being necessary to keep myself alive and paying taxes to the climate gods. How many fraudulent carbon credits do I need to buy from rich people to absolve my sins?

Or the average annual carbon footprint for one person in the US.

> The average US household produces 7.5 tons of CO2 equivalents per year.


Or 15.52 tons according to worldometer. Not sure who's right here.


Yeah good question. To add to the confusion, this paper published PNAS says "2.83 ± 1.0 t of CO2-equivalents per capita". Per capita is different from per household but might be a better metric

It also states that using just national energy statistics (this study actually analyzed 93 million households instead) you'd arrive at 3.19 t CO2 per capita which falls in line with their results


And, either way, this maneuver seems like it generated CO2 emissions roughly equal to those that would be saved by 10 people line drying their clothes for a year. Which 10 people are we gonna pick?

Or put in another way, the equivalent of ~2.24 years of energy usage by the average US household

Is the dashed blue line their intended route, or what they would submit to ATC? Differs quite a bit from the actual flight.

Looks like it could be the same as the actual route but sampled at a lower resolution.

In the layers (button top right) it's called the "planned route".

It's usually the filed flight plan (for instrument flights)

Or here https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n863gt#2f0b1162 Took 2 1/2 hours to plot this :)

This was almost certainly drawn out by hand, waypoints (lat/lon) and turns were plotted and then inputed into the flight management computer, and there is a good chance the plane just flew itself as told.

Although given it was flown at such a lower altitude below 15k feed near Moses Lake (which is where Boeing does a ton of testing at that airport) it's possible the pilots hand flew this by following a pre-plotted magenta line already plotted on a map for them.

This is what I was curious about. Presumably ATC wasn't calling out vectors, they were doing it through their own navigation. So did ATC basically give them free movement within a certain box and certain altitude? It looks like they did the moves at about 10,000 feet.

Yeah, just look at how balanced the design looks. Either they programmed that flight path or the pilot spent a lot of time on an etch-a-sketch growing up.

They could also just spoof the ADS-B data right?

I doubt their normal on-board systems have a feature to do that, or that the pilots would feel confident in doing so in terms of the FAA's possible reaction.

If Boeing wants to draw a 747 logo in the sky for the last 747 ever made, the 747, the symbol of american design, and they don't want to actually drive the plane around in loops, I'm sure the FAA would sign off on some foolery. But kudos to them for doing it live.

From a technical perspective, probably. In reality, absolutely not.

Given that the area is covered by radar (as well as MLAT SDR coverage), it would be tricky to pull off – and the FAA would probably not find it funny at all.

that didn't happen. They flew this.

Boeing does a lot of this actually. Here's another 747-8F drawing a massive "12" over the state of Washington to celebrate the Seahawks reaching the Super Bowl.


Any flight buffs know the estimated cost of doing something like that?

I’m all for having fun, and I love that they spent the money to do it

Not a flight buff, but...

- Jet fuel from NYC to LAX seems to cost ~$10k.[1]

- You pay a pilot $50 / hour salary. (+100% more with benefits?)[2]

- Double all of that for a bunch of random things I can't think of (airport fees?)

My napkin math seems to indicate this couldn't possibly cost Boeing more than $10-20k? Pretty small potatoes to such a large company.

[1] https://simpleflying.com/commercial-airliner-fuel-cost/ [2] https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Commercial-Pilot-Salar...

You pay a 747 pilot way more than $50/hour.


Seems weird.. you get payed $39/hour in your first year.. then jump all the way up to $239/hour in your second year and never really get a raise beyond that?

The link there is specifically UPS, which is union.

I guess it is probably the case that guys with a couple years experience are doing about the same work as guys with 10 years (plane smoothly and safely goes from A to B).

I had assumed it was an error.

Then count the fame you get for it... and it actually _increases_ value!

They more than $20k's worth of publicity from the stunt. Totally worth it.

Does that napkin math subtract the cost of the same delivery flight but without the stunt?

I didn't read about the flight but I assume that delivery was happening anyway, with or without the stunt. I am guessing it took an hour or two extra, so the fuel and pilot salary cost should only be what was extra in addition to the regular flight amount?

There isn't a 747 pilot on the planet making only $50/hr

> My napkin math seems to indicate this couldn't possibly cost Boeing more than $10-20k? Pretty small potatoes to such a large company.

Yeah they were losing billions through criminal negligence and delayed deliveries of the 737 Max, so a couple of tens of thousands for some well needed good PR is nothing. This is probably the first bit of it for multiple years now, with all the delays in the 777X, assembly quality issues of 787, etc.

It feels to me like a final swan song for the era, both corporate and economic, in which a project like the 747 was possible.

Yeah but they are also a major contributor to our breakaway UAP program with Lockheed - and also, the Horse fucking industry.


That link was... an interesting read. I'd say it merits a NSFW tag but it's kind of obvious from the title.

> Pinyan had previously lost the ability to experience certain sensations after a motorcycle accident, and he had begun to seek out increasingly extreme sexual acts

Almost feel bad for the guy if it weren't for the animal cruelty.

Wisdom of crowds and all that, i’m guessing around $30k ?

My working was:

+2 hours (a path that should take 0.5 hours took 2.5h according to flight radar)

According to a random aviation site, an unspecified 747 revision at unspecified altitude with unspecified engines burns 4 litres per second, so take that with a bag of salt!

Jet A1 fuel at $1/litre-ish

$30k-ish ?

Back of envelope ... 1 gallon of fuel per second [0], 2.5 hrs, $2.5 per gallon = $22,500

That's uh...pretty rough and I'm not a flight buff, but wanted to do the bare minimum for the exercise.

[0] https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/qu...

* edited the ppg

I don't know anything about flight deliveries. But, including a set of basic flight maneuvers makes sense to me. In which case they would be maneuvering anyway and they decided to go out in style. Big salutes to them who set it up.

You can tell nobody from Nascar was involved as there are both left AND right turns.

Fun fact: not all nascar tracks are left turn only.

Yeah when you race them backwards they're right turn only.

By the time the plane is delivered, it has already been fully flight tested.

Yeah, you don't want to find the problems on the delivery flight.

Better then than on the first passenger filled flight. Don't think of it as the delivery flight. Think of it is final test flight

This is a cargo plane, though, I don't think a passenger 747 has been built in a while.

same difference

Someone in a different thread estimated 2.4 tons of fuel, equating to 16.8 tons of CO2 emissions

For comparison the average US household produces ~7.5 tons of CO2 emissions every year so that's ~2.24 years of the average household's emissions

I'm guessing it is in the range of 50..60k. The sibling posts come up with lower values, including only fuel, ignoring the cost of the required regular (flight hours in this case) maintenance.


Decommissioned? It's brand new.

There's cost and opportunity cost and marketing, so who knows? But it looks like it doubled the leg length, I'd guess cost and opportunity cost into the 100k+.

Do it as part of a flight that needs to happen anyway (such as this one, which was a delivery)? Probably not much more than the fuel and overtime the pilots needed to fly a few extra turns.

Costs them $0 if they just bill the customer who the delivery was for.

Only if the customer wants to pay extra for the stunt

Former pilot here: $3-4 million easy. FAA regulations alone require $500k per sky-number drawn by any aircraft [1]


I think the link you are looking for is https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PEBCAK.

i think you either linked to the wrong article or i misunderstood a joke

Citation needed?

Your link is for an old covert drug research program?

You might have the wrong link there.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2023

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact