While the official report on the reason will probably not come out for a while, there is some speculation that it was due to convective activity (thunderstorms) in the region. Someone on the Cirrus pilots forum looked up the weather at the time of the incident, and it looked like there was some decently heavy precipitation along the approach path.
I think part of the reason might be that the browser settings aren't as reliable as location data. A lot of people even outside the US, have their browser/OS set to en-US from the default configuration. Even if they might be located in France or India. If Google had determined that was the case more than 50% of the time, then I can see why they favour using location for language instead of browser settings.
I added Accept-Language to our web logs for a month before we added our first site translation.
That showed us that the majority of people had a language matching the expectation we would have from an IP geolocation, so we use Accept-Language alone.
That hasn't been my experience both from running a site in Europe using the accept language header as default and from my anecdotal experience with friends in Asia and Europe.
In general, I think using geoip is much more likely to get things wrong than using the accept language.
I wonder if they could just change the browser to hint about "Do you want content in your local language?". I wonder if the dominant browser vendor on the web would be willing to accommodate Google...
So if that's the case then give them the en-US version? They'll either accept it because that's what they've explicitly requested, or change their system settings to match what they actually want.
"She had strung together phrases from all over a chapter, but I still recognized the passage immediately. Creating it was painful, one of many times in writing fiction that I’ve had to depict harm that I wish did not exist in the world. Told from the perspective of the senior class at an all-white high school, the section of the novel that Bell pulled from captures the crude fantasies and dehumanizing attitudes that swirl around my main character, the only Mexican American in her school in 1930s New London, Texas. I represent these views in the book so that I can reveal their toxic effect; I don’t endorse them."
"In Lake Travis ISD, all copies have been removed from library shelves. And just last week, Keller ISD, north of Fort Worth, restricted access to Out of Darkness in all high school libraries, citing the book’s “violence and difficult imagery.” Students in the district must ask a librarian for the book and show proof of parental consent."
I see your concern that a district choosing not to stock a book is not news, but in this case it sounds like the book was available and used in the curriculum in many districts for the past 6 years, and then only banned this year after the video by Kara Bell was publicized.
I'm not OP, but I imagine the concern is doing work for the company (i.e. fixing a bug in their codebase) without getting paid at least minimum wage for it.
Ah, I assumed it was just a realistic looking exercise. If they actually used code written by the applicant, I can definitely see all kinds of problems!
If I were designing this question I would probably use a real bug that we recently fixed. We'd already have a sense for how hard of a problem it was, and there's no worry about unpaid work.
While I do understand where you're coming from I don't see it as an impossible problem to automate. An automated system can instantly set the collective to the perfect rpm for autorotation, and can do it much quicker (and better) than a human. Especially on something like an R22 or R44 with very low rotor inertia.
In a smaller aircraft, you're relying a lot more on your forward momentum (i.e. forward airspeed) to cushion your landing, whereas in a larger helicopter the rotor inertia has enough energy such that you can place it straight down on pretty much any flat surface the system can find. Garmin already has something called Smart Glide for fixed wing aircraft where it calculates engine out trajectories, and so I don't see this as something impossible with a helicopter. Especially coupled with a wire strike cut (basically just a sharp knife sticking out of the front of the helicopter that just cuts any cables you run into).
I'd think given the use cases for some helicopter flights (e.g. sightseeing tours) where you're typically in VFR weather there's certainly an opportunity to have automated flights. I agree we're not there yet, but I don't see it as impossible in the near future.
(I mainly fly fixed-wing, but I have about 50 hours in an R22)
I am aware of wire cutters on helicopters, and yes, wire strike prevention with cutters would be useful, but that only solves one problem.
You are correct that a lot can be automated, but if there is anything that cannot be, humans have to be in the cockpit. And if humans have to be in the cockpit, then we actually don't want as much automation as possible. [1] See also [2].
The biggest problem I see with automating helicopter flight is that the hardest part of an autorotation is picking a spot to land. I don't think that can be automated. You would either have to have super high resolution radar pointed at the ground or high resolution computer vision that can identify flat spots which are as varied as the human race. I don't think either is feasible anytime soon. And that's without even considering the higher power draw they would require, as a sibling comment mentions.
Then you have to consider what happens in the case of full power outage, including no battery. In that case, you have effectively doomed the people onboard if there is not a real pilot.
Your comment about automating autorotations got me interested, and it appears that one UAV company has done a tech demo for it, at least from my cursory search. From what I can tell though the design space would be extraordinarily difficult to fully automate. Management of rotor RPM requires finesse, functioning flight controls and also quick decision making about where and how you are going to land. Usually the automatic flight control system would require either enough battery power to power your servo actuators after an engine failure or a system designed to run in AC power which is generated by your rotor system (which of course means it’s depleting rotor RPM at a time when rotor RPM is what is most important to manage). I think you’d have to design a lot of the aircraft systems with automation in mind, so it really would have to be a new aircraft in many regards, and you’d be unlikely to be able to retrofit an older airframe to do it. I think there’s just too many trade offs to make the system worthwhile in the low margin business of crop spraying, tour rides, or electronic news gathering. Medevac, oil rig transportation or military applications could make use of an automatic autorotation system, but those aircraft also tend to be medium to heavy twin engine aircraft which negates a lot of the need to focus as much on autos when you are designing the overall system.
There has been some effort to automate it via things like Pre-Departure Clearance (PDC) and Digital ATIS (D-ATIS) (https://foreflight.com/products/pdc/) that has improved things quite a bit at some larger airport. But you're right it is a very difficult problem, because of all legacy system (i.e. 60 year old airplanes flying around)
While you raise some good points about the "fixed risk costs" of flying not scaling by distance, deaths per hour isn't a much better metric. The use case for most people is to travel a specific distance. e.g. "I need to get from A to B" so should I fly or drive there. It's usually not, "I need to move around for an hour" should I take the bus or a plane.
This kind of analysis assumes that the destination is independent of the mode of travel. We only consider going from NY to LA so often because plane travel makes it practical. But this doesn't map well to the general claim that "airplane is the safest way to travel". A per trip metric seems like a more accurate measure of this claim, but then bus is the safest.[1]
What you want is the distance but that's not the risk you're being exposed to. As soon as you enter a plane you are being exposed to risk, like a radioactive element, regardless if the plane travels fast, slow or even in circles. Only when you get off the plane does your exposure to this risk change. The distance you traveled in the meantime had no direct effect. The fact that cars or buses take much longer to arrive means you have to factor in the additional hours of exposure to their risks, so it still makes a material difference how far you need to go, but the more direct relationship is the amount of exposure to the radioactivity.
The issue isn't that we can't sell the product it's that we don't have the free time available to scale out to the extent we'd like. We're already stretched quite thin, so having a separate sales force allows us to reach far more customers than we could ever reach on our own. Also, given that we're selling to schools, our salespeople have a lot more contacts, and can thus reach the relevant buyers more effectively.
