Cool, i don't care about either of these things. Jobs are a poor index of economic health for americans and we should really be guaranteed one as a fundamental human right if we also refuse to implement modern welfare.
Years of startup problems but when it finally started humming they were building a B-24 every 63 minutes! In the meantime existing factories were winning the war.
As Americans we tend to glorify the industrial feats of WWII but the US government used a very heavy hand to pull that off. Public-private partnership is the preferred euphemism today but essentially we were a socialist economy.
Ok please stop posting as darby_nine. I’d like my turn with that identity. I think it fits with some objectionable conspiracy theories I’d like to promote.
I am an engineer at a big tech company. I’m not a “normie”.
Even for me the new features aren’t compelling. They don’t really help me do anything I actually want to do. They don’t solve a problem or scratch an itch. And features change so often and so drastically I don’t really care to learn. I used to have an optical zoom but now I have super wide angle. My Fidelity widget used to show my balance but now it doesn’t so I just never bother swiping to that page. I assume the current iteration of widgets will go away or be replaced soon so I don’t bother trying to fix it. Whatever, doesn’t matter.
Smartphones are essentially solved at this point. It’s an appliance. And just like my washing machine and dishwasher the buttons are arbitrary and clunky but work well enough. I tolerate it. Like I tolerate that burner on the cooktop that doesn’t always work.
The only thing that would get me excited is text editing and spellcheck that work correctly.
I don’t get the assumption (not just in your comment, all over this post) that engineers and programmers are more likely to appreciate the changes.
I’m a programmer, apple devices have had the cpu grunt to run ssh or vi for ages. Therefore, I don’t really notice much generation to generation. I wonder if it will ever catch up to the Raspberry Pi in usability.
I expect a photographer, or maybe someone who opened big spreadsheets, or a social media person, or one of those coffee-shop authors, might be more likely to notice the difference.
How can you call it "solved" when such basics as text editing are broken?
The dishwasher comparison is also way off, the level of dishwasher interaction is primitive and the frequency thereof is very very low, so it's much easier to tolerate bad design
> How can you call it "solved" when such basics as text editing are broken?
I just want to be able to hold backspace in my URL bar until my link is 'polite' enough to share with someone else. I want it to stop clearing the entire field when I'm only halfway through removing the trailing crap.
So true. With so much advancement in phone tech I’m still not typing as fast as 15 years ago when phones had physical keyboards. Copy paste undo redo is unnecessarily clumsy. The list goes on.
This makes a lot of sense for tablets - but Apple decided they won't allow it in order not to cannibalize sales. For phones, the value is arguably smaller, at least for people like me who hate doing anything remotely complex on a tiny screen.
Total pipe dream. I like GNOME’s design but gtk and its desktop apps at large will never be appealing to mobile users, so I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
well not fully solved. That's why I was watching foldable phones carefully and seeing how they iterate. That was indeed the first thing in a long time that both excited me and easily had me imagining various improvements (horizontal folds for productivity, vertical to minimize space. Both to built-in protect the screen).
> presuming several crews per aircraft to sustain multiple missions
Everything I have ever read suggests crews “owned” their bombers. This is how you see nose art.
There weren’t multiple crews per aircraft although sometimes crews would share planes if their aircraft was damaged and the other crew suffered casualties but that wasn’t a daily thing. Certainly there weren’t multiple crews per aircraft.
Wikipedia says 350,000 Americans served in the 8th air force alone. That’s larger than the 215,000 of the maritime service.
Wiki says 3.4 million total in the Air force but most of that is not air crews. You need a literal army of mechanics, ground crews, and mission planners.
I can’t find numbers to answer the “most dangerous job” question but everyone suffered greatly.
Everything I have ever read suggests crews “owned” their bombers.
If you could turn up any information either way, I'd be interested to see it.
I can't find any clear statement. I'm familiar with nose art and pilot-specific names (e.g., "Bockscar", named after Captain Frederick C. Bock, which dropped the atomic bomb over Nagasaki). Wikipedia states that the practice varied by country and force, e.g., the US Army Air Forces permitted the practice, it was uncommon for the UK RAF and Royal Canadian Air Force, and the US Navy prohibited the practice.
What nose art says about specific crew-aircraft assignments and their specificity or exclusivity isn't clear.
Multiple sources note that crews would rotate out after 25 missions, though heavy casualties meant that both crews and aircraft faced challenges surviving that long.
And I still find it implausible that aircraft would be idled between individual crew missions, though overhauls and repairs might well account for that.
[1] says they rotated and only flew every third day:
> So began Fitzpatrick’s life as an air warrior. At first, bomber crews had to fly 25 missions to earn the right to rotate home. Because of high casualties, the Army Air Forces leadership increased the number to 30. The crews rotated, and as a result Fitzpatrick flew every third day. “I got 25 missions in before the end of the war,” he said. “I did most of my flying in the winter of ‘45 and the spring.”
They often flew 20+ hour missions. I have no idea how they'd operate like that without switching crews or underutilizing the plane.
They're not F22s either, they didn't need to go in for major maintenance every sortie. They had inspections after every flight and daily/25/50/100 hour inspections [1] but most of the time they went hundreds of hours before needing major work that would take a plane out of rotation for extended periods of time.
How long did those regular services take? 20 hour missions means they’re going in for service every mission. The 50 hour is every other mission.
Between the B-17 and B-24 we built about 30,000 strategic bombers in WWII. They don’t all have to be in the air regularly to maintain constant 1000+ bomber formations.
If you can find any account of how crews sharing aircraft regularly I’d love to see it because I have never heard anything like that.
> What nose art says about specific crew-aircraft assignments and their specificity or exclusivity isn't clear.
The B-17 was named “Ye Olde Pub”. There’s a chapter describing the crew meeting each other and naming their airplane. I don’t recall any mention of another crew being involved. But I did get a strong sense of connection and ownership between the crew and plane.
I believe after their return they fly another B-17 that lost much of its crew, maybe combining crews to fill in losses. It has been a while since I read the book.
I don’t recall ever reading anything to suggest B-17s were regularly flown by multiple crews.
> And I still find it implausible that aircraft would be idled between individual crew missions, though overhauls and repairs might well account for that.
We're iterating on a new idea. The commercialization of space travel. The technology exists to go to the moon or live in orbit but the question now is can we reduce cost and scale capacity.
> Unfortunately, depending on an open-source tool to do this is a double edged sword if it had these features, because we would be opening the risk of supply-chain attacks -- malicious actors getting commits into the repository code which cause the program to send your data elsewhere -- or worse, deplete accounts' funds.
This is FUD. You’re describing open-commit, which I don’t think anyone does. Open source is not more susceptible to supply chain attacks than closed source software.
reply