No, a go around is not a pilot error and it's not punished.
It's almost the opposite. There is automatic monitoring for stable approach criteria (simplified: you must be at speed X with flaps selected etc by altitude Y). So this example would cause an automatic report from the aircraft to the airline, because they were too fast (not within stable approach criteria) and still continued the approach instead of going around.
However even in those cases it's not meant for punishment but for safety improvement. In most professional operations these reports are made anonymous, and only for example someone from a union committee gets to know who the crew were and could have a talk with them if necessary.
> No, a go around is not a pilot error and it's not punished.
But the cause of a need to go around can be pilot error. There could be non-pilot error needs for a go around like when there is a runway incursion so the pilot is waved off. If a pilot makes a bad approach, would that not be pilot error? Not being a pilot, I'm not sure of the procedure. I'm assuming a 767 uses autopilot for the majority of the flight. I just have no insight on whether the pilot or the autopilot is responsible for the approach.
“[REDACTED, MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION]”
So any company has the option to redact information if they feel like it. Tesla has chosen to provide as little information as possible, claiming business secrecy, and no one can compel them otherwise.
It's because Musk fired his PR department. Tesla have no ability to damage control stories like this because it's no one's job at the company.
A normal firm would have a heads up warning when requests for comment hit their media inboxes and internally could start collecting data and developing a response: thanks to Elon they don't. The story hits first and goes completely unchallenged until investigators get involved.
Regardless of what you think of Tesla or Musk, they repeatedly kick own goals on basic product brand management.
There is also a baby products online store in the Netherlands that for religious reasons is closed on Sunday. You can browse the site but you can't buy anything.
That was the reason I bought a lot of stuff at their competitor baby-dump.nl. Until BP bought BD, and instituted the same policy there...
It's their site, they can do what they want. And as long as there's competition I can even admire them for making a sacrifice for something they believe in.
This kind of stuff becomes a problem when it starts arguing that others must do this too. If someone argues that all shops must be closed because their religion forbids working on that day, then that's an issue. But as far as I know, the Baby Park people haven't done that. They made a personal moral choice and sacrifice. Good for them.
We have similar e-commerce sites in Israel that close on Saturdays for religious reasons.
As someone living in a relegious country with religious parties in parliament, I see this as a slippery slope.
It's a way for religious groups to normalize forcing their lifestyle on the rest of society.
Religious mandates always tend to expand: what starts as "I don't care if you close your site on Sunday" can quickly escalate to "Why are you telling my wife and daughter how they should dress in public?"
I find the idea of cleverly and conveniently outsmarting God with Shabbat elevators and ovens difficult to reconcile with taking one's religion seriously, respecting God, and following the spirit rather than merely the letter of its laws.
But those are the harmless loopholes. The obscene version is ultra-Orthodox parties using political power to exempt their own sons from military service while authorizing summonses for everyone else's and sustaining a government accused of genocide in Gaza.
What believers arrange for themselves is their own business. Exemptions for themselves and war for everyone else are not.
God can presumably see through the elevator loophole. The rest of us can see through the conscription loophole.
I happened to want to order something there last Sunday. While digging into it, I notice that their closure seemed to be implemented only on the frontend using JS. By disabling some scripts, I was able to add products to my cart, which normally isn't possible on Sundays.
In the end, I didn't proceed to place my order on Sunday. It felt a bit disrespectful, and it was already late. (So I ordered half an hour later, which was technically Monday.)
The biggest camera store in NYC, B&H Photo, similarly closes their website checkout on Saturdays and on all the major Jewish holidays. It's mildly inconvenient, but it has never really stopped me from ordering from them. I think maybe one time it made me order from a competitor.
I have a huge problem with pharmacies being closed on Sunday, even in the Netherlands.
I had to spend much more than the cost of the prescription itelf just to travel back and forth to Centraal Station where the only pharmacy that would take my prescription was open, instead of using the local one two blocks away that's closed on Sundays.
lucumo: Ha ha! baby-dump.nl is such a hilarious name, I'm almost tempted to have a baby and change its diapers, just so I can use that web site and support them for being open on Sundays. (But not quite.)
Or is it for scheduling the collection unwanted babies? Never mind...
I had a WTF moment when I saw their logo for the first time, on quite a large building (possibly their main distribution center). Why they thought it'd be a good name I have no idea.
Their goal isn't only safe storage, it's also being able to sell when needed.
You can't quickly trade with the gold that's in their own safe storage facility in Zeist, because you would need to physically transport it. The reserve at the Bank of England is put there because there is a large market for gold trading there. So you can use the gold immediately to influence the markets.
Putting it in a safe place in another European country wouldn't have added value over storage in Zeist.
> You can't quickly trade with the gold that's in their own safe storage facility in Zeist, because you would need to physically transport it.
More specifically: very few people besides the NL government have any gold stored inside that facility, so intra-facility trade is basically nonexistent.
Selling to the US is equally complex, every state has their own sales tax rules and whether they apply to your type of product. Some exclude SaaS, some don't. And then for B2B you also have to apply the tax unless the business presents some kind of exemption certificate.
EU VAT within the EU for B2B is easy, make an API call to validate the VAT ID of the customer and you're done.
My only complaint would be that there is no inline-6 while that does have some interesting properties in terms of balance compared to an inline-4 or V6.
If you have the right authorisation on a business account you can "direct debit" from any account. It let's you charge a bank account in a similar way as a US creditcard can be charged by number and expiry date. Technically the contract with your bank says you need to have a signed authorisation from the account owner to charge their account, but you don't have to show it to the bank before charging.
The money you get that way isn't guaranteed, the account owner could do a charge back. And if that happens you have to show the signed authorisation from the account owner. If you don't have it, expect your bank to terminate the direct debit ability.
They will have moat in the satellite launching business, which is not useful in the AI datacenter market.
You can put AI chips in datacenters in the desert for far less than $100/kg. With lots of solar power available, the option to easily access your hardware and far less radiation issues.
The datacenter in space story really only exists to make it possible for Musk to sell X to SpaceX and make more money from the IPO. That's all. There is no engineering reason.
Musk's bet is dysfunctional politics will make it impossible to build enough data centres and the energy needed to power them. There are many, many reasons that might be wrong. However, if the economics are even close to viable, they could start throwing up data centres quicker than anyone can build them terrestrially (at least in the democratic west).
So to be clear, the prediction is that every single location on earth will be economically infeasible due to politics, and that these same politics will have no impact on the launch or satellite businesses?
GMAFB.
It's stock pump bullshit from a guy who has figured out how to extract the maximum from stock markets.
> Meanwhile Nvidia just announced a space-optimized Vera Rubin designed with SpaceX designed for orbital datacenters.
well, no, they announced the concept of a space-optimized Vera Rubin designed with SpaceX:
> NVIDIA and SpaceXAI are working to adapt that foundation to the requirements of orbital computing while preserving a common NVIDIA architecture and software ecosystem.
The press release is really announcing that SpaceX's terrestrial data centres are going to use Vera Rubin.
Yours is the only valid argument. If space datacenters are not competitive with terrestrial (in terms of megatokens/$ or whatever), then they will never work and SpaceX will fail. That's the whole ball game.
But anyone who thinks they can predict those prices in ten years is wildly overconfident.
Or, Elon pulls his classic narrative sleight of hand for like the 9th time and announces SpaceXesla is NOT a car, battery, solar, self-driving, robot, space launch, space datacenter, or AI company but now completely pivoting the business to [INSERT NEXT BIG THING] that will 100x the company in 6 months maybe, 6 years definitely.
Space Datacenters eventually get quietly discontinued after finally killing the zombie brand at which point the only reaction is "huh, remember that?"
Cooling is probably the easiest problem to solve, easier than power. And in both cases, the problem is solved by mass to orbit. All you need for cooling is a big f-ing radiator. Solar panels are chips, and not trivial to manufacture. But a radiator is just a hunk of metal with some pipes.
That's why the cost of mass to orbit is the most important thing. You can solve almost any space problem by just throwing more mass at it.
Any hardware that could be launched to orbit could also be put on a container ship in international waters. It makes zero sense to put these things in space.
You can't deploy enough solar panels on a container ship to feed the datacenter, and a nuclear reactor, while not impossible, is far more expensive than solar panels.
Solar panels are 4x more efficient in space. 2x because of lack of atmosphere and another 2x because there are 24 hours of sunlight in SSO.
Is it really that hard to just say, "I don't know if it will work or not"?
You can't deploy enough solar panels on a container ship to feed the datacenter
Ridiculous. Have you ever seen a container ship? One engine on a container ship puts out 80 megawatts, or around 80 orbital data centers' worth of power. So if there's not enough room for solar, which would surprise me greatly, then running a generator is not going to be a problem.
As for the lack of 24-hour operation, a ~50% duty cycle is a perfectly reasonable tradeoff for not having to launch something into LEO. You can easily deploy several times as many installations for the same money if they don't have to work in space. And they will be maintainable, to boot.
Okay, I admit I underestimated the container ship benefits. 80+ MW is a lot of power and you get easy cooling to boot. Fuel cost is a problem (relative to solar), and you can't do inference on it, but it might make sense for training.
Don't get me wrong, nobody is a bigger fan of economical and sustainable civilian access to space than I am. (Which means nobody is more disillusioned and resentful of Musk than I am.)
And I fully sympathize with the need to remove these things from local and even national sovereignty, having seen as an increasingly-horrified American just how destructive populist influence can be.
But putting millions of servers in orbit? That just doesn't seem like the way forward, for so many reasons.
you're all so clueless with these arguments. there's 5x the solar power in space. it's all about how many watts of compute you can bring online. in a sun synchronous orbit there is 24-hr solar power. there is no weather or maintenance.
I've created a simple project for that, except that by default they open PRs on Forgejo/Github/Gitlab. It's open source and the workflows are config files, so you can configure it to allow you to pull from them instead of creating a PR. Source: https://github.com/smithy-ai/smithy-ai
One way I use it that is similar to what I think you want is to run a local Forgejo instance (just like OP) and have the Dockerised Claude instances work in that, then pull from there to my local git repo, review, test etc and push from my local repo to a remote like Github.
It's almost the opposite. There is automatic monitoring for stable approach criteria (simplified: you must be at speed X with flaps selected etc by altitude Y). So this example would cause an automatic report from the aircraft to the airline, because they were too fast (not within stable approach criteria) and still continued the approach instead of going around.
However even in those cases it's not meant for punishment but for safety improvement. In most professional operations these reports are made anonymous, and only for example someone from a union committee gets to know who the crew were and could have a talk with them if necessary.
reply