Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | neurotech1's comments login

The F-117 was shot down by a SA-2 SAM, not bullets. The SAM commander was smart, and the mission planners were not being smart and had the F-117s fly the same route repeatedly.

Additionally, the SAM locked on while the F-117 was coming off target, with the weapon bay doors open.


The "supercomputer" claim is based on the F-35 having a multi-processor avionics system.

A good example of the "cheap" fighter is the Korean F/A-50. This jet has some of the Beyond Visual Range capability of the F-16, at 1/3 the cost. It doesn't have the range or the weapons capacity.

A well trained T-38/F-5 aggressor pilot can nail an F-16 or F-22 in a dogfight, within visual range. The Stealth F-35 will have the ability to engage an enemy aircraft without ever being detected, and that "minor" detail justifies the cost. In previous conflicts, once the opposing aircraft locate each other on radar, the adversaries would be forced into the merge, or risk being shot down at long range.

The F-16 has made a successful engine-out landing before, when the conditions allow. Earlier jets like the F-104 were almost impossible to land engine-out.


And how many F-14s were lost as a result of single-engine handling performance issues? F-14s have departed from controlled flight after one engine stalls, and entered a flat spin. Yes, the scene in Top Gun was somewhat based on real events.

A few F/A-18s have been lost due to issues with single-engine performance. The F/A-18 doesn't have as much issues with asymmetric thrust, single engine flight isn't always possible.


Which is precisely why "close encounters" between Chinese & US, or Russian and US, aircraft are treated seriously. Prior to the 2001 Hainan Island incident, it wasn't a serious issue most of the time.

There is a difference between Elon Musk having a low tolerance for technical stupidity, and people treading on eggshells to avoid having to report bad news. My guess is that it would have been far better report "We have this issue, and here is our solution" than simply report bad news.

It would be likely that Elon didn't just walk over to a particular car at random, but asked for a dealer inventory model, and this particular car was not recorded as "sold" to a customer for whatever reason.

Publicly saying "How Elon Musk Stole My Car" probably wouldn't have made it easier to resolve this one more smoothly.


I know a couple of neurosurgeons who basically don't practice outside of federal/military facilities, and are covered by the Federal Tort Claim Act [0].

The salary is significantly less than a private practice neurosurgeon, but they don't have malpractice insurance or support staff costs.

In under-served and rural locations there are community clinics, also known as Federally Qualified Health Centers, and as part of the package, student loan repayment by the US government for the doctors. These doctors are usually civilian, and not in uniform (US Military or PHSCC). The repayment program is part of the National Health Service Corps[3].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Qualified_Health_Cen...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_Corps


Do you think we could maintain the current staffing level of nsx across the entire US with all their current responsibilities (level 1 trauma etc) if they averaged $200k/year each? How do you ask 2 or 3 surgeons to evenly share 24/365 call to keep a trauma center open at that comp level?


Which college/medical school cost that much?

In either Federally Qualified Health Centers [0], or other federal/military hospitals, the Federal Tort Claim Act [1] basically covers the malpractice insurance. There other programs that allow non-profit medical centers limited coverage under the FTCA.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Qualified_Health_Cen...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act


I remembered reading that Tesla CTO, JB Straubel commented that he understands 90% of the processes at Tesla. If an organization is so complex that the CTO & CEO are unable to effectively understand the business processes, then that would be a problem.

I guess one measure for YC and the funded companies, is when major mistakes get repeated because the solution is not communicated to startups requesting advice.


Cheaper EEG sensor interfacing for (neuro)feedback would be a major step forward. Using the EEG sensor with various game interfaces is possible, and has been beneficial for patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.

With TBI, the issue is often connectivity between parts of the brain, and that can be measured as EEG Coherence.

I agree with lettergram and others, that without feedback these type braingames don't really do anything.


This is what SenseLabs (https://senselabs.com) are doing with a product called Versus (https://getversus.com). It's an EEG sensor connected to an iPad where you play games.

Disclosure: I used to work for them.


Its worth noting that Dick Smith, the founder/adventurer/pilot, has zero to do with how Dick Smith Holdings is ran as a company.


Dick Smith Foods however, I think he might still have a hand in.

One of their more memorable products, being the Dickheads... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickheads


Dick Smith Foods[0] is a separate company that he is still involved in its management.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Smith_Foods


They never dared move into the cheese market, though.




Pass the Dick Cheese, I stand corrected.



Applications are open for YC Summer 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact